Sitting of 30 April 1996

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

    Westminster Council
    Mr. Jon Owen Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received concerning the level of revenue support grant settlement in 1996–97 with respect to Westminster council. [25671]
    The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. John Gummer): I have received a number of representations, including some that point out that, when compared with a city such as Liverpool, Westminster has been much less generously treated by the Government than it was under the previous Labour Government.
    Mr. Jones: Will the Secretary of State confirm that if every council got the same help that Westminster gets, 336 out of the 358 councils would be able to pay a rebate and that 10 would be able to pay a rebate of more than £900 per council tax payer? Is not that political largesse completely unjustifiable by anyone outside the Conservative party? It is a political fix and he should admit it and be ashamed.
    Mr. Gummer: What I will confirm is that if the same figures had been arranged under a Labour Government, more people would have been able to do more than that. That shows how ridiculous the hon. Gentleman's proposition is. If all councils were given the same money as Tower Hamlets, there would not be an area in the country that would not be able to do much better than he suggested, but the Labour party controls Tower Hamlets, so it does not like to say that.
    Mr. Brooke: As the working population of my constituency exceeds the national average by a factor of almost 20 and exceeds that of any other constituency by a factor of five, will my right hon. Friend accept my representation that I am glad that he has noticed that my two authorities are different in category and not only in degree?
    Mr. Gummer: My right hon. Friend may also have noticed that all independent observers point out that the system that we use is objective and the most sophisticated in the world. The only person who does not believe that is the hon. Member for Holborn and
    886
    St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), who said that he does not accept what experts say. That is because they never agree with him.
    Ms Armstrong: Does not the right hon. Gentleman recollect that the experts disagree that Westminster is the fourth most deprived area and say that this is a serious matter that the Government should address? Should not the Government address the fact that, if Trafford got the same council tax support as Westminster, it would be able to give every council tax payer £527 back; Rochdale would be able to give £303 back; and Oldham would be able to give £145 back? The Westminster skew is a fiddle; everyone knows it and will show it on Thursday.
    Mr. Gummer: It is odd that, when the hon. Lady was asked about it, she said that she would not like to promise major changes in the system that we use. She is condemned out of her own mouth. She knows that what she says is not accepted by any of the Labour-controlled local authority organisations and that no one from any political party who understands the system agrees with her. She knows that she is trying to mislead the country. The country knows it, too, and will show it on Thursday.
    Mr. Redwood: Does my right hon. Friend know that Wokingham district council is receiving no revenue support grant this year, yet, for the third successive year, Conservatives have offered a cut in the council tax while offering improved services? Unfortunately, the Liberals have forced through a 13 per cent. increase in the council tax and a deterioration in services. Does not that show that Thursday matters and that people must vote Conservative on Thursday for lower taxes?
    Mr. Gummer: My right hon. Friend is too kind to the Opposition parties—it is true not just in Wokingham, but throughout the country, that it costs £225 a year more to have a Labour council than a Conservative council. What is more, the Audit Commission shows that people get less for paying more. They pay more with Labour and get worse services. That is what the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras is trying to hide with his wholly spurious comments about Westminster.

    Rents-to-mortgages Scheme
    Mr. Pike: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his estimate of the take-up of the rents-to-mortgages scheme in 1996. [25672]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. James Clappison): My Department has made no estimate of future sales.
    Mr. Pike: Does the Minister agree that the scheme has been another sunken disaster flagship policy for the Tory party—a waste of money and a waste of time? Would it not be more sensible, if the Government are really concerned about housing, to do something to help people with mortgage difficulties, perhaps by considering a mortgages-to-rents policy instead of a rents-to-mortgages policy?
    Mr. Clappison: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman thinks that an effort to help people into home ownership is a waste of time. He will be aware that it is one of a range of policies through which we have promoted home ownership since 1979. Due to that range of policies, more than 1.5 million people are home owners, including 2, 000 former council tenants in his constituency. I make no apologies for promoting home ownership. Tens of thousands of people are going into home ownership through such schemes every year. One of the interesting things about the scheme is that it is an attempt to help those on lower incomes into home ownership. The hon. Gentleman's party is turning its back on those people, just as it is turning its back on those who want opportunities in education by threatening to abolish child benefit for 16 to 18-year-olds. Labour is turning its back on home ownership and education.
    Mr. John Marshall: Does my hon. Friend agree that that attack on the rents-to-mortgages scheme and Labour's votes yesterday to restrict the right to buy show that new Labour has the same stupid prejudices as old Labour?
    Mr. Clappison: The same instincts are there. Labour has criticised every attempt to help people into home ownership and it is still doing so.
    Mr. Raynsford: Will the Minister now admit that, despite 13 clauses in legislation, huge publicity efforts and £140,000-worth of promotional expenditure, the Government have managed to persuade just 15 people in the country to take up the scheme? Does the Under-Secretary of State recall his colleague, the Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration, saying in Committee of another Tory white elephant—the infamous tenants' choice scheme—
    "it is daft to leave in the Bill something that does not work and is therefore redundant, so we will get shot of it."—[Official Report, Standing Committee G, 2 April 1996; c. 1037.]
    When will the Government get shot of the absurd rents-to-mortgages scheme and, more to the point, when will the country get shot of this absurd Government?
    Mr. Clappison: The import of what the hon. Gentleman is saying is that it is wrong for Governments to explore opportunities for helping people into home ownership. The success of our policy is reflected in the more than 1.5 million people who have gone into home ownership since 1979. I am surprised that Labour's spokesman on housing is adopting the criticisms of the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike). He should be aware that, in his constituency, more than 7, 000 householders have been helped into home ownership since 1979. We make no apologies for trying to help people into home ownership.

    Workplace Safety Representatives
    Mr. Clapham: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what measures he intends to strengthen the position of workplace safety representatives; and if he will make a statement. [25673]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Sir Paul Beresford): The current system of workplace safety representatives works well, but we
    888
    intend to bring forward regulations to extend consultation rights to workplaces where there are no trade union safety representatives.
    Mr. Clapham: It is interesting that the Minister says that consultation procedures are to be modified, as he will know that safety representatives, working through their safety committees, have been an enormous influence in reducing accidents but that accidents have increased in some industries, such as mining. A couple of weeks ago, I drew to the Minister's attention the fact that a mining company operating in Northumberland—Stormgate Mining Ltd.—had not renewed its employer's liability insurance, yet men were working at that colliery. In his modified consultation procedure, will he arrange with the Coal Authority a register of all the activities of companies employed in the mining industry, to include a copy of the employer's liability insurance certificate, so that it can be viewed by the safety representatives at the colliery?
    Sir Paul Beresford: We are looking at, reviewing and giving consideration to this case.

    Home Renovation Grants
    Mr. Pope: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many mandatory home renovation grants were awarded by local authorities in 1995. [25674]
    The Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration (Mr. David Curry): There were 34, 300.
    Mr. Pope: Tens of thousands of people live in unfit housing across east Lancashire. They struggle to get the grants to which they are legally entitled and, later today, the Government will seek to remove their legal right to mandatory improvement grants. Why is the Minister intent on taking away the only chance that my constituents and many other people have of getting a decent home?
    Mr. Curry: The hon. Gentleman clearly has some difficulties with chronology—that does not happen in the Housing Bill, which we are to consider today. If he holds his breath and submits an application, he may be able to serve on the Committee that considers the next Bill, which will replace mandatory grants with discretionary grants. First, he should get his documents in order. Secondly, we cannot sustain a system that has a cash-limited grant and unlimited entitlement to it—the sums do not add up. Therefore, the sensible thing to do is to make a discretionary grant and to give local authorities the ability to focus it on the areas of greatest need so that they can serve the genuine interests of regeneration. That is what the Bill will do.
    Mr. Pickles: Does my hon. Friend recognise that, sometimes, we need to go beyond these grants and that some housing estates require fundamental reorganisation? Is he aware that, for the past 10 years, an estate in Islington has been promised renovation work? Is he further aware that, for the past 10 years, Islington council has pontificated and promised the tenants some work, but that it has failed to fulfil its promise because of its incompetence?
    Mr. Curry: My hon. Friend is right: some of the older estates require much more substantial work. The Government have an estates renewal programme that is specifically designed to tackle the worst estates. What he has said about Islington council will surprise no one—it has a dismal record, which no doubt continues.
    Ms Eagle: Will the Minister admit that the 1.5 million people who live in homes that are unfit to live in will be disappointed that the Government are abolishing this scheme and that they are replacing it with a discretionary scheme? When will the Government provide money so that people can look forward to having their homes made fit to live in? That is not really such a big ambition as we reach the end of the 20th century.
    Mr. Curry: First, there has been a substantial programme for the improvement of homes. Secondly, many homes are unfit for simple or minor reasons. Thirdly, public expenditure constraints have to be observed. Fourthly, when the second Bill comes to this House, it will be interesting to see whether the Labour party will do what it did in the other place—refuse to give any commitment whatsoever to restore full mandatory grants. If the Labour party wants to make an effective point on this, it would be awfully nice to know what it plans to do in this area of public expenditure and on taxation. The two are linked, and we still know nothing.

    Planning Policy Guidance (Countryside)
    Mr. Robathan: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to revise the Government's planning policy guidance for the countryside. [25675]
    The Minister for Construction, Planning and Energy Efficiency(Mr. Robert B. Jones): Following our well-received White Paper entitled "Rural England", we expect to consult on a draft revision of planning policy guidance note 7 and on a possible rural business use class before the summer recess.
    Mr. Robathan: I congratulate my hon. Friend and his Department on the excellent White Paper entitled "Rural England". Is he aware—perhaps he will take account of this in his consultations—of the unhappiness in some rural areas, particularly in my district of Blaby and Harborough in Leicestershire, because district councils are being compelled to provide for a large number of new homes on green-field sites? Will he, in his consultation, look to encourage the regeneration and rebuilding of inner cities on derelict land rather than building new homes on green-field sites?
    Mr. Jones: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments about the White Paper. It is precisely because we want sustainable development in housing, as elsewhere, that, for the very first time, we have set a target for the percentage of housing to be built on existing developed land. I have said to the Environment Committee that, if experience allows us, we will raise that target in time.
    Mr. Vaz: Does the Minister accept that current planning policy guidance is a jungle of anomalies and
    890
    inconsistencies? For example, why has he refused to publish the results of the review into planning policy guidance note 6 until after the local elections on Thursday? Does he realise that the delay is causing massive confusion? When will we have planning policy guidance that is clear, consistent and strategic, rather than the mess that we have at the moment?
    Mr. Jones: Let me help the hon. Gentleman. He knows that there is a convention that announcements such as that are not made in the run-up to local elections. We shall make the announcement immediately after the local elections, in accordance with the right practices in government.
    While the hon. Gentleman is posing a question on the subject, let me ask him about reports in the weekend's press that the Labour party was poised to reverse our policy on out-of-town shopping. I am sure that any squalid deals cooked up by the Labour party, along with the squalid deals that it cooked up with BT and with Rupert Murdoch, will show it for what it is.

    Compulsory Competitive Tendering
    Mr. Congdon: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what further steps he intends to take to ensure that there is an equality of treatment when contracts are being let under compulsory competitive tendering between direct service organisations and the private sector. [25676]
    Sir Paul Beresford: My hon. Friend will be aware that, earlier this month, we issued new statutory guidance to local authorities on compulsory competitive tendering. In addition, we will publish our proposals for changing the CCT system next month.
    Mr. Congdon: I warmly welcome that guidance and my hon. Friend's efforts to root out anti-competitive practices in local authorities, but does he accept that many local authorities—especially Labour ones—will do everything possible to ensure that contracts are let to their own direct labour organisations? Will he take further steps to encourage the district auditor service more rigorously to try to root out those anti-competitive practices and to pay special attention to the terms of reference of direct service organisation boards, which appear to be set up to rig the system in favour of DSOs?
    Sir Paul Beresford: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The shenanigans that some Labour and Liberal local authorities get up to dodge the common sense of competitive tendering are staggering. The district auditors, or the external auditing system, have the power to act in many areas, and need encouragement to do so. We shall certainly continue the encouragement, along the lines that my hon. Friend suggests.
    Mr. Corbett: Does the Minister recall insisting that Birmingham city council should re-advertise its five housing management contracts when it had awarded them in fair competition with the private sector? Does he realise that that costs council tax payers in the city £1.5 million? Will he foot that bill?
    Sir Paul Beresford: The answer is that it was not a fair competition. The fiddling of the books and the shenanigans that went on were incredible—not only in housing, but in other areas, time and again—and the people who lose are the people who pay and the people who receive the services. This is a blow of old Labour, and it is about time that people, including Opposition Members, understood the advantages of competitive tendering.
    Sir Anthony Grant: Is my hon. Friend aware that a very good example of the importance of transferring contracts to the private sector may be found in Cambridgeshire, where nearly £2 million has been lost to direct labour organisations by the incompetent, half-baked Lib-Lab county council?
    Sir Paul Beresford: There are repeated examples of such cases throughout the country. Bradford is a classic example. By shenanigans, it lost £1.2 million. When it was forced to repeat the tendering process, the new contract went out to the private sector, with a saving of £700, 000.

    Darlington and Westminster Councils
    Mr. Milburn: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the local authority grant per head in (a) Darlington and (b) Westminster; and if he will make a statement. [25677]
    Mr. Gummer: This year, £997 for Westminster and £621 for Darlington. That is a difference of 75 per cent. In the last year of Labour government, the difference was 84 per cent.
    Mr. Milburn: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for those figures. Do not they show that, if Darlington received the same level of Government help as Westminster city council, this year, every family in my constituency, instead of paying a council tax bill, would receive a rebate of £681? Is it not a national disgrace that the local authority grant system has been skewed and rigged to favour one inefficient Tory flagship council?
    Mr. Gummer: What it shows is that any skewing that took place took place a darn sight more under Labour than it does under the Conservatives. It also shows that the hon. Gentleman should not work out a supplementary question before he has heard the answer to the main question.
    The Labour party is entirely wrong. All the figures show that Westminster did significantly better than many of the councils that have been cited when the Labour party was in power. The Labour party's fox has been shot: if Labour Members understood the system, they would not have started the argument.
    Mr. Thomason: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, while a number of authorities may complain that the grant per head is not sufficient and that the methodology is weighted against them, whether one lives in Darlington or in Westminster, until the local government organisations controlled by the opposition parties can
    892
    suggest alterations to that methodology that are acceptable to local authorities, it will be very difficult for the Government to make any changes?
    Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend points out that all three local authority organisations that are run by Labour do not make the same claims as the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson). They understand how the system works and they are part and parcel of it. The hon. Gentleman, who will not listen to experts, does not understand how that system works. Parties such as his charge people £225 a year more than would a Conservative council.
    Mr. Dobson: Will the Secretary of State confirm that, under the present grant regime, council tax payers in Westminster contribute just 4 per cent. towards the cost of their council but that, in Darlington, council tax payers contribute more than 30 per cent—and that council tax payers in Bromsgrove, Hertsmere, North Hertfordshire, Milton Keynes and Wyre Forest pay more than 30 per cent? In Basildon—the other Tory flagship—people must contribute 42 per cent. towards the cost of their council. Does not that show that the whole system is a rigged racket that favours Westminster, and that legions of Tory Members of Parliament vote for that racket, following the party line rather than standing up for local people?
    Mr. Gummer: Where were the legions of Labour Members of Parliament when Westminster did better under Labour than it does under the Conservatives? The trouble with the hon. Gentleman's argument is that he has not done his homework. He thinks that, if he says the same thing again and again, people will believe him—even though what he says is fundamentally untrue, as anyone who understands the system knows.
    The fact is that Westminster did better under Labour—it received a bigger proportion of funds under Labour—and Labour Members of Parliament voted for that year in, year out. The Government apply an objective system to everyone, including Camden, even though Labour runs its councils so badly.
    Mr. Yeo: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the grant per head made to Suffolk county council is extremely generous? Does he share my shock at the way in which the Labour and Liberal county councillors are now ruthlessly switching resources away from the villages and the rural areas of Suffolk in order to prop up their friends in the towns? Does not that prove that, when it comes to rigging local authority finances, the Labour and Liberal parties are the experts?
    Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend is far too kind. He fails to mention the fact that, although Suffolk county council received an extra £11.5 million to spend on education, it spent only £8.5 million and put the rest elsewhere. He does not mention either that the council cut off funding for transport for 16 to 18-year-olds, thus underlining Labour's tax on A-levels. The Labour party has taken money from parents by way of travel allowance and it would also abolish child allowance for 16 to 18-year-olds. It is opposed to those who keep their children at school. The Labour party costs more and it spends public money where it wants rather than where the people want it to be spent.

    Forestry
    Mr. Bill Michie: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent representations he has received regarding forestry in England. [25678]
    Mr. Clappison: During the consultation on the rural White Paper, we received 54 written representations on forestry. We continue to receive representations on many aspects of forestry.
    Mr. Michie: Will the Minister make representations to the Scottish Office, which has overall responsibility for our forests, to stop the back-door privatisation of Forestry Commission land by Forest Enterprise as that would restrict public access and reduce the environmental quality of our woodlands, which are a precious national asset?
    Mr. Clappison: The hon. Gentleman should be aware that high-access woodlands are not included in the disposal programmes and that, in other cases, local authorities have opportunities to reach agreements on access. In view of his comments and concern, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will welcome the fact that the Government are improving access to woodlands by the creation of the national forest and the network of 12 community forests serving large parts of Britain, including the hon. Gentleman's constituency in South Yorkshire. I hope that his constituents will enjoy that access in due course.
    Mr. Wilkinson: My hon. Friend will recognise that the few remaining areas of woodland and forest within Greater London and within the M25 are particularly important national assets. Will he ensure that those areas, many of which are green-belt areas and sites of special scientific interest, remain sacrosanct in respect of planning and development?
    Mr. Clappison: I have every sympathy with my hon. Friend as my constituency is within the M25 and includes some of that woodland. He will be aware of the community forest that serves my constituency. It is Government policy to preserve open spaces and forests within the metropolitan green belt.

    District Auditor Service
    Mr. Sheerman: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent representations he has received from local authorities regarding the role of the district auditor service. [25679]
    Mr. Curry: None.
    Mr. Sheerman: The Minister will be aware that the district auditor service is highly regarded by many local authorities, including Labour-controlled Kirklees. If he wants to talk or shout about squalid deals and shenanigans, he should recognise that many people in local government believe that the Secretary of State brought undue pressure on the district auditor to delay the report on Westminster city council until after Thursday's local election. If on May 7 that report—the Tories, who are shouting, do not like this—names the individuals responsible for wasting £30 million of taxpayers' money
    894
    on gerrymandering, will the Minister or the Secretary of State ensure that action is taken to drive those people out of public life for good?
    Mr. Curry: That accusation is categorically untrue. It is a scandalous attack on the integrity of the auditor dealing with Westminster's affairs.
    Mr. Barry Field: Will my hon. Friend tell that lot opposite that we do not like having district auditors' reports carried out at the behest of council tax payers and Liberal Democrat councillors refusing to publish the results? Does he agree that everyone considering voting Liberal Democrat on Thursday should know that that party should carry a financial health warning?
    Mr. Curry: We can all agree that any sensible system of local government must have a system of independent audit and that sensible politicians will recognise that the auditors must be allowed to get on with their job without political intervention.
    Mr. Rendel: Given the length of time that the auditor has had to report on Westminster city council, and acknowledging the great difficulties that have been created by the procrastination of former Conservative councilors—
    Mr. Field: When will the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) answer my question about the district auditor's report?
    Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Field) has put his question. Let us hear someone else now.
    Mr. Rendel: Given the delay in the publication of the report and its importance in respect of various people's continuance in public office, what steps is the Minister taking to ensure that major reports are produced rather more quickly in future?
    Mr. Curry: The Government have no intention of intervening in the process of audit for any purpose. If local government is to be based on financial integrity, the audit service must be free of political interference and in the hands of an independent authority. I do not intend to intervene in that process. The Labour party plans to transform the Audit Commission into a super surrogate for local government. Nothing would be more dangerous. The matter is best left in the hands of the Audit Commission, which does its job very well.

    River Thames (London)
    Sir Sydney Chapman: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to enhance the use and amenities of the River Thames in London. [25680]
    Mr. Gummer: My strategic planning guidance for the Thames will have as its three major goals quality building along the Thames, more freight and leisure traffic on the river, and the conservation of its natural environment.
    Sir Sydney Chapman: Notwithstanding the fact that there are no elections in London this Thursday, is my right

    895
    hon. Friend aware that the initiatives and the actions he has taken to promote greater use of, and to enhance the amenities of, the Thames have been far greater than were ever achieved under the old and little-lamented Greater London council? Does he further agree that the siting of the major millennium project at Greenwich will give a glorious opportunity for the Thames, especially in central and east London?
    Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend will accept that the planning of the Thames needs to have a strategy that reaches way beyond the old GLC area, right down to the coast. That is another example of the fact that one can deal with London's strategic problems only on a variable basis. Boroughs on both sides of the Thames are now working together inside and outside the old Greater London area in a way that they would never have done when they were borne down upon by the expensive, inefficient and failed Greater London council.
    Miss Hoey: Does the Secretary of State agree that the River Thames is a wonderful asset for London and that there are many new developments, especially on the south bank in my constituency? Will he especially welcome the new millennium wheel? It will be a most wonderful monument to the millennium. Does he further agree that, if we are serious about developing the use of the River Thames, we have to make it much easier for piers to be provided along the river, and planning guidance should be changed to help to achieve that? If new developments had to provide a pier, that would do a great deal to ensure that the river could be used.
    Mr. Gummer: I think that the hon. Lady will be pleased with the strategic guidance, because that is the sort of subject on which we have been working together in the all-party group that has directed the preparation of that guidance. I am also pleased to agree with her about the enormous advantages of the proposals that have been made for sites all along the Thames. It would be wrong of me to make an especial comment about the great Ferris wheel, but I am sure that the hon. Lady will agree that we need to show that we have the confidence in these years to make big changes and to stand up for this generation to show that we have something to offer to the next.

    New Housing
    Mr. Simon Coombs: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many new houses have been constructed in the past two years; and if he will make a statement. [25683]
    Mr. Curry: There were 370, 100 completions in Great Britain in 1994 and 1995
    Mr. Coombs: Is my hon. Friend aware that the level of house building in Swindon rose from 664 houses in 1994–95 to 1,163 houses in 1995–96? Is not that near doubling in the number of houses under construction in those two years clear evidence of a very strong recovery of the economy?
    Mr. Curry: My hon. Friend is right. The basis for that recovery is the containment of public expenditure and ensuring that interest rates remain low. Both those would
    896
    be threatened by a policy of spend and high taxation such as the Labour party refuses to deny. The Labour party will not give us any details on what it will spend and what it will tax.
    Mr. Sutcliffe: Despite those figures, is it not the case that real housing need—that of the homeless—is not being met? Is it not the Government's policy to prevent local authorities from building the necessary houses for social rent and affordable housing? When will the Government do something about providing homes for the homeless?
    Mr. Curry: As a matter of interest, I spent part of this morning at a conference run by the English Churches housing association, dealing with the problems of street homelessness in London. At that conference, there was a very warm welcome for the imaginative and forward-looking programmes to deal with people in the worst possible circumstances—the street homeless. The hon. Gentleman will know that we plan to extend those programmes to cities outside London, where a clear need can he determined and where the voluntary sector and the public and statutory authorities can work together. That is a remarkable attack on the problems of the people in the worst possible circumstances in the United Kingdom, and it works.

    Water Bills
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent representations he has received regarding the use of a pre-payment card system for the payment of water bills. [25684]
    Mr. Robert B. Jones: My Department has recently received representations on the use of budget payment units, which use a pre-payment card system, from the hon. Members for Lewisham, Deptford (Ms Ruddock), for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) and for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden) and from one charitable organisation. I am confident that the units have helped to reduce problems of water debt, as have the trusts that a number of water companies have set up to help customers who cannot pay.
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: Is my hon. Friend aware that budget payment units are extremely popular with the 16, 000 customers who voluntarily opted to have them installed? is not it ironic that certain local authorities, mainly Labour, have sought to challenge the legality of the provision by water companies of budget payment units?
    Mr. Jones: I agree that it is extraordinary. Not only have the units been helpful but MORI surveys have shown that 90 per cent. of customers are satisfied.
    Mrs. Helen Jackson: Will the Minister make a distinction between budget pre-payment units that make payment easy and timing devices that shut off the water supply when the money runs out, thus leaving the household without a supply? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that representations have been made against the latter devices by the National Consumer Council, local authorities, the National Federation of Housing Associations and environmental health officers because

    897
    those devices pose a risk to public health? Will the Minister at least ensure that the number of people whose water supplies are cut off by such devices is published alongside disconnection figures, which are generally published?
    Mr. Jones: The hon. Lady ought to acknowledge that both methods are popular and voluntary. I am sorry that there is a split in the Labour party on the subject. Clive Wilkinson, the former Labour leader of Birmingham city council, said:
    "The overwhelming view of customers in my area who have had them installed is that these units are a good thing. I have not received a single complaint about the units from customers. I do not want to see customers being denied the choice if they want to opt for one of these units."

    Chemical Waste Recycling (Worcester)
    Mr. Luff: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received about the proposal from NORCHEM to establish a chemical waste recycling facility at Warndon, Worcester. [25685]
    Mr. Clappison: My Department has received 125 representations on that subject.
    Mr. Luff: Does my hon. Friend agree that that number of representations shows the depth of anger in my constituency at an unwelcome and totally inappropriate proposal, which has already led to the deselection of the local Labour county councillor who argued for NORCHEM and against the interests of my constituents? Will my hon. Friend do all in his power to ensure that the Environment Agency refuses a licence, and re-examine the city and county council planning procedures that led to this unfortunate situation?
    Mr. Clappison: My hon. Friend is correct when he says that there is clearly huge interest in this serious subject among the people of Worcester. My hon. Friend will be aware of the restrictions on me and on the Department in respect of planning cases and the actions of local authorities. I assure my hon. Friend that I will take a particular interest in the matter.
    My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the Environment Agency's powers over waste management, and over licensing in particular. The system is highly acclaimed and those powers will be available in this case, if necessary.

    Water Industry
    Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the regulation of the water industry. [25686]
    Mr. Gummer: The regulatory system for the water industry in England and Wales ensures that the companies can finance their investment programmes while protecting the interests of customers and the environment.
    Mr. Dalyell: If Britain has a dryish May, June and July, who will pay for the emergency measures in August and September? Will it be the water companies, consumers or Government?
    Mr. Gummer: Happily, the likelihood is that, even if this year is as difficult as last year, no one in England will
    898
    be subject to rota cuts or standpipes. If that is so, the privatised water companies will have achieved something that was never achieved by the nationalised companies at any time in the history of similar water situations. It is for the water companies to make provision.
    Mrs. Peacock: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the problem being encountered by Batley city challenge, in being prevented by Yorkshire Water from using water for stone-cleaning activities? What advice can my right hon. Friend give that city challenge?
    Mr. Gummer: I am pleased to say that the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison), has agreed to look into that problem. My hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Spen (Mrs. Peacock) will know that Yorkshire Water has made major changes and considerable investment, to ensure that the water problems of last year are overcome.
    Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I hope to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

    Standard Spending Assessments
    Mr. Barry Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of recent representations he has received on standard spending assessments. [25687]
    Mr. Curry: We consider all representations received on SSAs. Proposals for change are examined with the local authority associations in the standard spending assessment sub-group of the settlement working group.
    Mr. Jones: Why did the Government show favouritism to Westminster council?
    Mr. Curry: The hon. Gentleman clearly does not understand the system of local government finance. We direct the funds where the needs are greatest, which is why in London the single biggest recipient of Government support is Tower Hamlets, followed by councils such as Southwark, Lambeth and Islington. If we did not do that, that would indeed be wrong. The idea that there should be a pro rata rate across the country is both fundamentally wrong and extremely silly.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Hinchliffe: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 30 April. [25701]
    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. Hinchliffe: Has the Prime Minister had drawn to his attention the article that appeared in the British Medical Journal last week, which stated that the

    899
    Committee on Safety of Medicines recommended the prohibition, for pharmaceutical purposes, of all beef products from potentially bovine spongiform encephalopathy-infected herds as far back as 1989? In view of that information, will he tell me why the Department of Health did not make similar recommendations about beef consumption at that time?
    The Prime Minister: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will weigh very carefully what he has to say in these matters. That is most emphatically not what his hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) did some time ago. We take and make public the advice that is appropriate in terms of safety in this country. That is our responsibility and that is what we do.
    Mr. Michael Brown: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 30 April. [25702]
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Brown: The right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) and his cohorts on the Opposition Benches fall over themselves to try to get the votes of the gin and Jag brigade—the middle classes—but is the Prime Minister aware that it is the Conservative party that speaks for those in my constituency, in Cleethorpes and Immingham, who are still proud to call themselves working class? Is it not a fact that those people look to the Conservative party and the Conservative Government to ensure that they have the chance to buy their council house, to escape from trade union rule, from the closed shop, and to ensure that child benefit is protected for their children, who want better and further education? [Interruption.]
    The Prime Minister: The latest recruit to the middle classes, the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), is heckling from a sedentary position. I hope that his arrival among the middle classes did not cause them too much distress. The policies that he advocates certainly would: higher taxes on people—[Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East says it on his aircraft. The shadow Transport Minister says it publicly and then does not subsequently deny it. There would be an extra tax, of course, on parents who have children at school between 16 and 18—a special tartan tax if someone happens to be a Scot. Those people can have that sort of tax as well. If someone happens to be a Londoner, they can have a top-up tax. Tax after tax. The Opposition know that that is their position. We are cutting taxes now. The Opposition plan to increase them.
    Mr. Blair: I think that what most people remember is the 22 tax rises since 1992, and VAT going on—from the Prime Minister who said that it would not.
    Is it correct, as has been reported today, that recorded crime in January and February of this year was substantially above recorded crime for the same period last year?
    The Prime Minister: The minute that was leaked, which has caused some correspondence between the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) and my right hon. and
    900
    learned Friend the Home Secretary, is not accurate. When the figures are available to us, we will publish them in the normal way, but I understand that the leak that appeared this morning was not accurate.
    Mr. Blair: I hope that the Prime Minister will publish the full figures. [Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. The House must come to order—all of it. That includes the Front Bench below the Gangway.
    Mr. Blair: The same memorandum says that recorded crime has now risen for six consecutive months. Is that correct? Is it also correct that the trend in crime is upwards, as the memorandum additionally says? If those two points are correct, will the Prime Minister accept that, since the Conservatives came to power, crime has actually more than doubled?
    The Prime Minister: As I said a moment ago, we will publish the detailed figures at the usual time in the usual way; but, as it happens, parts of the figures in the memorandum that was leaked were wrong. Although monthly figures are always volatile, there is no doubt that crime fell in the last two months of 1995, so it cannot have just risen for the past six months, as the right hon. Gentleman said it did.
    If the right hon. Gentleman is concerned about reducing crime, perhaps he can explain to us why he and his party vote against every measure that we introduce to be tough on crime. Why do they always make excuses for the criminal, and ignore the pleas of the victims?
    Mr. Blair: This party was advancing constructive proposals for law and order while the right hon. Gentleman's Ministers were still boasting about the numbers coming out of prison.
    If the Prime Minister says that parts of the memorandum are wrong, perhaps he will now tell us which parts are right. Perhaps, instead of talking nonsense about Labour policy, he will admit the truth about his own—that people are less safe in their own homes, less secure in their jobs and less confident of their future, and that it is precisely because of that weakness, failure and incompetence that people will be so justified in punishing his party on Thursday.
    The Prime Minister: That comment was a long time coming, and it was not really worth waiting for. We will publish the figures in the usual fashion at the usual time.
    As for being constructive on proposals, I am surprised that the leader of the Labour party thinks that he is constructive on crime. We reformed the right of silence; he opposed it. Was that constructive? We gave the Attorney-General the right to appeal against soft sentences; the right hon. Gentleman opposed it. Was that constructive? We increased the penalty for cruelty to children; Labour opposed it. Was that constructive?
    On issue after issue after issue, the Labour party shows that it is soft on crime. It is not prepared to take the measures that will attack the criminal and protect the

    901
    citizen, and, however the right hon. Gentleman tries to make partisan points, that is what the public know about his policy.
    Sir Graham Bright: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 30 April. [25703]
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Sir Graham Bright>: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that child benefit for children who stay at school for a further two years to study for A-levels is worth in excess of £1,000? Can he also confirm that child benefit has its origins in tax rebate? If that were abolished, as Labour proposes, it would be equivalent to putting 5p on the basic rate of tax for the average parent. [Interruption.]
    The Prime Minister: I note that Labour Members laugh at the thought of 5p on tax for people on average incomes. So much for their claim that they would not increase taxes. Child benefit was a tax allowance benefit; it was made into a cash payment for mothers to ensure that it was used on behalf of their children. Now Labour proposes to provide a disincentive to stop children from staying on at school.
    Mr. Faulds: Don't be so childish. You are Prime Minister, for God's sake.
    Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must keep his cool.
    The Prime Minister: If the hon. Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds) studied his party's policy on this issue, he would be right to be angry at the way in which it proposes to treat people up and down the country.
    Mr. Ashdown: The Prime Minister is, I believe, an honourable man. [Interruption.] Yes, he is. Will he therefore confirm that he understands that, if once again Conservative Members of Parliament try to change the Prime Minister, while denying the country the chance to change the Government, it will be totally unacceptable to all the British people? Will he therefore confirm that if, after Thursday, they try to get rid of him, he will ensure that we have a chance to get rid of the Government?
    The Prime Minister: I fear that the right hon. Gentleman is dealing in fantasy again.
    Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 30 April. [25704]
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Marshall: Will my right hon. Friend welcome the article in today's Evening Standard about tube and bus fares in London? Is that not good news for Londoners, who can look forward to the extension of the Jubilee line, improvements to the Northern line, Thameslink 2000, the Heathrow to Paddington link, improvements to the
    902
    docklands light railway and the Croydon tramway link? Does that not show that we act, and the Greater London council just talked?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend, who has been lobbying on many of those matters for many years, has clearly studied the transport document with great care. He is of course right. It is good news for passengers in London, and so of course is the policy of capping fares. We expect London transport fares to rise at a significantly lower level than in the past as part of a strategy of making public transport more attractive.
    Mr. Mike O'Brien: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 30 April. [25705]
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. O'Brien: With reference to the previous question, which the Prime Minister did not really answer, will he say whether he has ever discussed an understanding whereby, if the Conservatives do not do well in the local government elections this week, he will make way for the Deputy Prime Minister? We need a reassurance on that, as the Prime Minister must understand. Will he take it from me that he has the support of much of the House to remain leader of the Conservative party up to a general election? He has the support of at least half the Conservative Members, and of every Labour Member.
    The Prime Minister: I suspect that the hon. Gentleman is in mischief-making mode—[Interruption.] Clearly, he was not; clearly, he was just being silly.
    Mr. Pawsey: My right hon. Friend had a very successful breakfast meeting with business men in Warwickshire on Friday. Will he therefore repeat, for the benefit of the House, the points that he made about the social chapter and the damage that it would do to employment and prosperity in the United Kingdom?
    The Prime Minister: I noticed over the past few days that countries abroad, particularly Germany, are now beginning to take action to bring down some of the high social costs that have created fiscal difficulties and unemployment in their countries. In this country, we are not prepared to have a social chapter, which is damaging as it stands but would be infinitely more damaging if we signed it, the rest of Europe brought their social expenditures into the social chapter, had them approved by qualified majority vote as they could, and then imposed them on British employers at the cost of British jobs. We are bringing unemployment down. I intend to see it come down further. I do not intend to take this country into the social chapter, to stop the fall in unemployment and to see it begin to rise again. That is no bargain for the British work force.
    Mr. Foulkes: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 30 April. [25706]
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Foulkes: Does the Prime Minister realise that not only is his deputy after his job but the Home Secretary and the Health Secretary are as well? We therefore need a categoric assurance that, however many seats the Conservatives lose on Thursday, the Prime Minister will lead his party into the next general election. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien) said, the Prime Minister has the support of almost half his party, and the support of all the Labour party.
    The Prime Minister: I think that the hon. Gentleman heard what I had to say just a moment or so ago, and I have no intention of accommodating his silly questions.
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: Given the interest in what happens after the next general election, did my right hon. Friend see the poll in The Times at the end of last week, which showed that the majority of people expected that, if there were to be a Labour Government, unemployment would go up, interest rates would go up, inflation would go up and there would be more control for the unions? Is that not the real reason why the Labour party wants to delay an election for as long as possible?
    The Prime Minister: Of course people would expect that of a Labour Government. People know from experience that that is what has happened with every Labour Government we have ever had at any stage in the past, and that that would occur again—unemployment up,
    904
    interest rates up and tax rates up. There is absolutely no doubt that that is what happened in the past, and that is what would happen in the future.
    Mr. Gordon Prentice: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 30 April. [25707]
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Prentice: Does the Prime Minister appreciate that this is the last day of work for Mr. Cedric Brown, who retires with a pension of £250,000 and a continuing consultancy with British Gas of £144,000? Does the Prime Minister care to comment on today's press release from the North West gas consumers council, which states that complaints in the north-west region increased by 97 per cent. last year? Does he believe that Mr. Cedric Brown warrants that largesse?
    The Prime Minister: I believe that when people get an unsatisfactory service they are right to complain. They are right to complain to British Gas, and, now that British Gas is in the private sector and faces competition, people can expect that their complaints will be taken seriously, which they certainly were not when British Gas was in the public sector—when prices were rising dramatically and when the service was falling. Under plans for competition—for which I see no support from the Labour party—people who are not satisfied with British Gas will have the opportunity of going elsewhere. That is what competition means.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION
Madam Speaker: With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to delegated legislation.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(4) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

DELEGATED LEGISLATION
  FAMILY LAW AND SOCIAL SECURITY
  That the Social Security (Adjudication) and Child Support Amendment Regulations 1996 (S.I., 1996, No. 182) be referred to a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation.
  SOCIAL SECURITY
  That the Social Security (Industrial Injuries and Diseases) (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 1996 (S.I., 1996, No. 425) be referred to a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation.
  FAMILY LAW
  That the Child Support Departure Direction (Anticipatory Application) Regulations 1996 (S.I., 1996, No. 635) be referred to a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation.

  SOCIAL SECURITY
  That the Income-related Benefits Schemes (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 1996 (S.I., 1996, No. 462) be referred to a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation.—[Mr. Brandreth.]
  Question agreed to.

  Points of Orders
  3.32 pm
  Mr. Tim Devlin: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. May I draw your attention to this House of Commons envelope, which has just been sent out in County Durham, enclosing a Westminster report from the hon. Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg) with club news for the City of Durham Labour club? It seems to be a flagrant misuse of the paid post, which has been drawn to my attention by the Conservative prospective parliamentary candidate in Durham. I wonder whether you would look into the matter.
  Madam Speaker: We have procedures in the House that I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows. I should be very much obliged if he would supply that material to the Serjeant at Arms, who will carry out an investigation. If it is necessary, a charge for the cost of the—[Interruption.] Order. I am talking. If it is necessary, a charge for the cost of the stationery and the postage will be levied against the hon. Member concerned.
  I caution hon. Members from both sides of the House that House of Commons stationery and postage must not be used in this way. In any instance in which it is, the Serjeant at Arms must be informed right away, and he will keep me informed of his investigations. Would the hon. Member please let the Serjeant have all the information without delay?
  Mr. Gerry Steinberg: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. I was certainly unaware of the situation. As every hon. Member knows, these things get sent out from one's office without our giving instructions to do so. I apologise to the House that this has happened. I will certainly make investigations and make sure that any money that is owed to the House is paid directly back. It was a mistake by my office. I am sure that many hon. Members leave it to their staff to do these things, and I shall certainly reimburse the House if there are any problems.
  Madam Speaker: I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman has just said, but I should be grateful if all hon. Members would make it clear to their staff, particularly in their constituencies, which is where the problem occurs, that House of Commons stationery must not be used in this way.
  Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I am grateful to catch your eye on such a noisy afternoon.
  My point of order relates to Her Majesty's Stationery Office. I wonder whether you have had the opportunity this morning to read The Guardian article about HMSO. You will remember that, some weeks ago, we discussed the privatisation of HMSO, when hon. Members of all parties expressed a great deal of concern about its future. This morning's news shows that there has been a £3 million wipe-off of the debt owed to HMSO by the Republic of Uzbekistan. Has any Minister made an approach to you about making a statement? That news was available at the time of the debate, but we were not given the information.
  Madam speaker: No Minister has made an approach to be about making a statement in the House, but I

  907
  understand that a written question is on the Order Paper. I believe that the answer is available. Perhaps I could refer the hon. Gentleman to it.
  Mr. Derek Foster: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. I am a little surprised to hear you say that no Minister wants to come and make a statement on that matter. I understand that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster invited selected journalists into his office yesterday, and gave them full information. I understand that, subsequently, a written answer gave much less information than was given to the press.
  There has been a £40 million loss in respect of HMSO for the first time in its history, £26 million of which was due to redundancies in preparation for privatisation. The House deserves a full statement on that matter, and on the matter raised by my hon. Friend.
  Mr. Peter Bottomley;further to that point of order, Madam Speaker.
  Madam Speaker: I do not usually take further points of order, because they can become a debate, but, exceptionally, I will hear the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Bottomley: As the House has received a written answer and the HMSO accounts are in front of the House, what we have seen is a Member on the Opposition Front Bench asking a question as a point of order. If that habit is allowed to start, there are many written answers, and many of us could do the same thing.
  Madam Speaker: If the hon. Gentleman will leave the matter to me, I was ready to reply.
  The answer will be seen in Hansard of Monday 29 April at column 331. As for the last point of order, perhaps the hon. Gentleman may wish to raise that matter with the Leader of the House and seek a debate or a statement. As he knows, it is not within my authority.

  Part-Time Employees (Equal Rights to Sick Pay and Leave)
  3.37 pm
  Ms Angela Eagle: I beg to move,
  That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide that employers give the same entitlements to sick pay and leave to their part-time staff as they do to their full-time staff.
  This is the second of three ten-minute Bills—each, I am pleased to say, with cross-party support—which argue for the principle of equal and fair treatment for part-time workers. Only with a level playing field of rights and entitlements between full-time and part-time work can we look forward to the economy finding the most efficient distribution between the two.
  Ultimately, no economic good will come if part-time work is just a cheaper alternative. A deregulated labour market such as ours will tend to produce too much of it, at the expense of full-time work. Lower pay will remove spending power in local economies. Lack of national insurance benefit entitlements will lead to poverty in childbirth, sickness and retirement, and exploitation will lead to lower productivity and fewer skills in our work force. Ultimately, that will undermine our competitiveness, not enhance it.
  There are plenty of signs that that is already happening. The Trades Union Congress has been collecting case studies of the exploitation of part-time workers going on in Britain. Diane, a coach driver from Cornwall, is classed as part-time by her employer because he does not guarantee her any hours. She works anything from 96 hours a week in summer to 10 hours a week in winter. She says:
  "I get laid off for a fortnight over Christmas with no money and I don't get paid holidays or sick pay—I earn £3 an hour".
  Karen is employed by a video sales and rental business in Staffordshire. Part-timers aged over 25 are paid £2.75 an hour, and, if aged under 25, just—1.75 an hour. They work nine hours on Sundays and bank holidays for no extra money. Holidays and time off for sickness are unpaid.
  Mr. D is employed as a part-timer by a privatised utility. He says:
  "from day one, I have been working between 35 and 40 hours a week. Yet I'm not entitled to any of the usual benefits. Three weeks ago, me and all the other 'part timers' were told our services were no longer required. If companies can treat people like this, I hold out little hope for the future of our country."
  Those case studies are not unique. They are not even unusual. They are typical of the sort of exploitation and discrimination that part-time workers face the length and breadth of the country.
  All too often, part-time workers are treated as second-class by their employers. That attitude has been condoned and encouraged by the deregulation mania on the Conservative Benches. We must remember that, behind every tale of exploitation, there is a human being with feelings and with a life to plan and to organise.
  Part-time work is an increasing feature in Britain, rising from 12 per cent. of the work force in the 1950s to 25 per cent. in the 1990s, and it is expected to reach more than 30 per cent. by the turn of the century. Six million of our fellow citizens work part-time. Most part-timers are women. Many choose to work shorter hours because it best enables them to juggle their caring responsibilities with their need or desire to earn their own living.

  909
  Many such women, however, have found themselves full-time breadwinners as part-time service jobs have replaced full-time manufacturing jobs. As I have shown, many people classified by their employers as "part-time" are working full-time hours, but failing to qualify for full-time rights.
  Part-time work is not a hobby. It is not done for pin money, although it often pays peanuts. It makes a vital contribution to the household budget. People who work part-time deserve dignity, rights and access to such things as holiday and sick pay. It is about time hon. Members took part-time workers' needs seriously. Most are happy to work part-time, but they are unhappy that they are treated differently from their full-time colleagues. They want equal and fair treatment. The Bill would help them to achieve it.
  Until recently, part-time workers were actively discriminated against by official Government policy. The deregulators in the Government have made a virtue out of discrimination. They have systematically stripped away protections from all people at work, but especially from part-timers. They used to have to wait five years before they qualified for any employment rights at all, but, thanks to a House of Lords judgment, their treatment has been equalised with that of full-timers.
  Now is the time to extend that principle to other areas, because discrimination is still rife. The pay gap between full-time and part-time workers is large and widening. More than 500, 000 part-timers earn less than £2.50 about hour. Low pay means that 2 million part-timers do not earn even the £57 a week needed to pay national insurance contributions. With no record of such payment, they are ineligible for any contributory benefits, so, if they fall ill, they have no access to statutory sick pay.
  As the deregulators in the Government have declined to require employers who provide occupational sick pay schemes to ensure that they cover all their employees, those benefits do not plug the sick pay gap, either. One in every three part-timers is completely excluded from sick pay benefits by his or her employer.
  Paid holiday entitlement is an equally important issue. Most full-time workers have it, but it is often denied to part-timers. Britain is unique in the European Union in having no statutory right to paid holidays at all, yet most full-time workers have managed to preserve their entitlements, despite deregulation mania, and 84 per cent. of them get at least 20 days a year. Yet 1.7 million part-timers get no paid holiday at all, despite the fact that, as the House has heard, some of them work long hours.
  All that would change if Britain were to adopt the working time directive due to come into force in November. Far from welcoming that modest civilising measure, the Government have pulled out all the stops to defeat it. First they tried to veto the directive. They failed. Now they are spending lots of taxpayers' money at the European Court arguing for the constitutional principle that national Governments should be allowed to condone whatever exploitation of their citizens they see fit, without interference from nasty foreigners. The European Court, by the way, is the institution that 77 Conservative Members last week voted to have nothing to do with.
  It is not an edifying spectacle to see the party of Macleod and Macmillan, and even of Disraeli, reduced to that slavish devotion to a cruel and out-of-date economic dogma. Of course the ideological gurus of Thatcherism will oppose my Bill. The deregulators who have taken their Adam Smith a bit too literally will be lining up to denounce it.
  910
  Those people have a dream for Britain: they see us as the sweatshop of Europe, and in their delusion, they fondly imagine that we can compete and earn our way in the world by having labour costs lower than those in places such as Albania—and presumably, lower even then those in the Chinese gulag. They have a simple mantra, and we shall probably hear it chanted at us again today. They say that lower wages and worse conditions mean more jobs, while higher wages and better conditions destroy jobs—unless, of course, one happens to be Cedric Brown.
  Logically, that means that no wages and no conditions would create an infinite number of jobs. Why do those people not take their policy to its logical conclusion, and reinstate slavery to solve the unemployment problem? Even Adam Smith did not think that things were that simple—but why let reality intrude on a good piece of economic dogma, even if it did cause widespread starvation and misery when it was first tried during the industrial revolution?
  The classical economic dogmas that were used to oppress starving weavers and to justify the workhouse are now being applied, albeit more subtly, to the 6 million of our fellow citizens who work part-time. The ever present prospect of arbitrary treatment at work with no redress is one of the major causes of the fear and insecurity now stalking the land. It explains the non-appearance of the feel-good factor, it is unfair and inefficient, and ultimately it will destroy our competitiveness.
  We can compete in a global market only on the basis of education, skill, and the real flexibility that comes from having a stake at work and in society. Rights and entitlements for all workers are a part of that, and it is time for the House to recognise the contribution of part-time workers, by granting them full-time rights.
  3.47 pm
  Mr. Alan Duncan: I am grateful for the opportunity to oppose the Bill, because I maintain strongly that it is really an Unemployment (Increase) Bill. In many ways, the debate is timely, because last week the German Government announced a package of public spending cuts totalling £22 billion, and admitted that economic growth in Germany would be worse than previously expected.
  One of the main objectives cited by the federal Government was a cut in non-wage labour costs. As the Financial Times reported last Friday, the German Government hope to make a big dent in their 4 million army of the unemployed by exempting many small companies from employment rules and from compulsory sick pay.
  The Bill would simply add to Britain's non-wage labour costs, at a time when our competitors are fast realising that their costs are too high, and that we are at a competitive advantage because ours are lower. One look at youth unemployment proves that. In Spain, it stands at 38.2 per cent., and in France at 27.7 per cent., but in the United Kingdom it is below 14 per cent. As the hon. Lady pointed out somewhat ironically, we have one of the highest participation rates in the labour market, and the Bill would destroy that.
  Like so much of what purports to be Labour party policy, the Bill is born of the mistaken notion that passing legislation can improve life just like that, without any

  911
  adverse effects. It is born of a lack of experience of how the world works. It shows no understanding of the world of work or of the world of business decision making.
  It is like saying that, if I were to introduce a ten-minute Bill to make everyone a millionaire, I could in one fell swoop abolish poverty and make everyone rich. It looks at only one side of the equation, and conveniently ignores the basic truth, that anyone who wants to employ someone has to count the cost of doing so. That cost involves not only the weekly pay cheque but all the other costs, risks and obligations that legislation and commercial reality add to the basic pay packet.
  It is often small companies that employ people part-time. What is paid by the employer and what is achieved by the employee are often matched penny for penny, with little room for movement. Anything that might put financial obligations on the employer that went beyond the wealth-creating, productive effort of the employee could destroy the business, and would certainly destroy the job opportunity.
  At the very least, the imposition of higher non-wage labour costs would put downward pressure on the level of wages paid in hard cash by the employer to the employee in the first place. Many employers and small businesses count their pennies closely. The last thing they want as they get off the ground and struggle to grow is legal obligations such as this, that may hit them in a way they cannot predict or afford.
  It was astonishing that the hon. Lady went on about slave labour, while showing no understanding of what creates job opportunities and underpins their survival. But perhaps we should not be so surprised. The Labour party's entire economic programme, such as it is, is a well-crafted platform of deceit. It talks about creating jobs, while intending to do everything in practice to destroy them. It talks about low pay, yet it would tax jobs with further burdens such as this Bill, which would lead to lower pay or joblessness. It talks of the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer, while wanting to introduce measures such as this, which would end up making the poor poorer still. It talks about financing mass unemployment, yet this Bill would create more unemployment and require even greater Government finance to pay for it.
  The Bill is designed—and cunningly designed—to make people feel that they would be better off under Labour, when the cruel truth is that they would be thrown out of work by a party that remains anti-business and largely ignorant of it.
  Where do Labour Members acquire their experience of business? From the trade unions? From their council work? From their work in the media or as lecturers? It rarely comes from the real work of wealth creation.[Interruption.] Let us consider, in the face of this barracking from Opposition Members, Labour's Front-Bench Department of Trade and Industry team. It comprises Members who at one time or another have been a policy researcher, a poverty lobbyist, a journalist, a welfare rights officer, a lecturer, a radio presenter, a National Association of Local Government Officers official, and a local authority adviser.
  912
  That those hon. Members have had no experience of government is at least explicable, but that they have had no experience of anything very much at all leaves them insultingly ill-equipped to understand the interests and mechanisms of Britain's wealth-creating sector. Take their leader, their shadow Chancellor and their absent spokesman on trade and industry; take the hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle); take almost all of them—the only thing they have ever run in their lives is a bath.
  The extension of full employment rights to all part-time, temporary and casual workers—a commitment included in the Labour document, "A New Economic Future for Britain"—would cost British firms an estimated £1.5 billion. That is a punitively high tax on jobs. It is a massive bill with which to saddle some of the most vulnerable, smallest and newest businesses. That is a foretaste of what would happen if there were ever to be a Labour Government.
  I must say one thing to the hon. Lady and those on the Opposition Front Bench. If she and others want to make a spending commitment, let them do so honestly and openly, instead of disguising it in a Bill of this sort. It is part of the Labour party's sly attempt to raise expectations of what various groups would enjoy under Labour. It is a ploy born partly of wilful deceit and partly of staggering naivety on how the real world of business works. Those hopes would be raised only to be cruelly and cynically dashed.
  Who on earth would employ a student part-time? Who would bother to take on youngsters whose opportunity in life might already have been blighted by a Labour Government's £1, 000 tax on their study for A-levels? Let us be absolutely clear about the effects of the hon. Lady's legislation. On behalf of all those whose jobs she would destroy, having first manoeuvred to buy their votes, let me make it absolutely clear that we will hound her and remind her until kingdom come that her Bill, if it ever becomes law, and the policy of the Labour party, are a comprehensive job destruction package, which would achieve the very opposite of what I hope she genuinely wants.
  I urge the hon. Lady to forget the Bill, and to drop it. It is no more than a misguided act of wishful thinking that would destroy the job prospects of thousands, who deserve a far better opportunity in life than that on offer from the hon. Lady today.
  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 Ms Angela Eagle, Ms Jean Corston, Mrs. Alice Mahon, Ms Roseanna Cunningham, Mr. Elfyn Llwyd, Miss Emma Nicholson and Mr. Hugh Dykes.

  Part-Time Employees (Equal Rights to Sick Pay and Leave)
    PART-TIME EMPLOYEES (EQUAL RIGHTS TO SICK PAY AND LEAVE)
    Ms Angela Eagle accordingly presented a Bill to provide that employers give the same entitlements to sick pay and leave to their part-time staff as they do to their full-time staff: 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 116]
Orders of the Day
  Housing Bill
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), further considered
  Housing Bill
    New clause 10

      COLLECTIVE ENFRANCHISEMENT: REMOVAL OF NEED FOR PROFESSIONAL VALUATION OF INTERESTS TO BE ACQUIRED
      'In section 13 of the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 (notice by qualifying tenants of claim to exercise right to collective enfranchisement) subsection (6) (tenants to obtain professional valuation of interests proposed to be acquired before giving notice) shall cease to have effect.'.—[Mr. Clappison.]
      Brought up, and read the First time
      3.58 pm
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. James Clappison): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Madam Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 21 to 25.
      Mr. Clappison: These amendments arise from considerations in Committee, when the Government undertook to give further consideration to the position in respect of the current statutory requirement that leaseholders in blocks of flats who want to exercise their right to collective enfranchisement must first obtain a professional valuation of the interest that they want to acquire.
      The original purpose of the provision was as a safeguard for leaseholders. The process for collective enfranchisement can often be complicated, and that is especially so when a large number of leaseholders are involved. Normally, they will be required to enter together into some form of participation agreement, in order for negotiations with the freeholder to proceed. From the outset, it seems sensible that they should be informed of their likely financial commitments arising out of potential enfranchisement.
      However, the Government have considered carefully the arguments that were put forward during deliberations in Committee, and we have accepted that they carry some weight. In most cases, it would still seem prudent for leaseholders to take professional advice at an early stage. However, we accept that not every case will be as complicated as others and that there should be more flexibility in the avenues open to leaseholders. For example, they may be able to take advantage of advice offered by the Leasehold Enfranchisement Advisory Service. In addition, several leasehold valuation tribunal decisions are now available and a number of groups representing leaseholders have gained substantial experience and can often help in that area.
      I accept that a statutory requirement to seek an initial valuation does not apply to the enfranchisement of houses and to lease extensions. Although collective enfranchisement for blocks of flats can be more complicated, there is an anomaly in that respect. I also understand that the removal of that requirement is
      914
      supported by a number of leaseholder groups, which believe that it involves them in unnecessary expense. Therefore, the Government accept that there is a danger that the provision is over-prescriptive.
      New clause 10, together with the related consequential amendments, will remove that requirement from the collective enfranchisement procedures set out in the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993
      Mr.NickRaynsford: As the Minister has made clear, new clause 10 removes the requirement of a leaseholder to obtain a valuation before he can proceed with an enfranchisement claim. This new clause is in response to a new clause that the Labour party moved in Committee, which had a similar effect. In Committee, the Minister said that he was unconvinced by the need for it, but he agreed to reflect on the issue.
      We are delighted that the Government, on mature reflection, have concluded that our proposals were appropriate and that they have now come forward with this reform. We welcome it, like many other leasehold reform measures that we moved in Committee. We know that they are worth while, that they will assist leaseholders and that they will help to make a reality of leasehold enfranchisement. We shall be delighted to see this new clause added to the Bill.
      Question put and agreed to
      Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill

    New clause 11

      PROVISION OF GENERAL LEGAL ADVICE ABOUT RESIDENTIAL TENANCIES
      '.—(1) The Secretary of State may give financial assistance to any person in relation to the provision by that person of general advice about—

      (a) any aspect of the law of landlord and tenant, so far as relating to residential tenancies, or

      (b) Chapter IV of Part I of the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 (estate management schemes in connection with enfranchisement).

      (2) Financial assistance under this section may be given in such form and on such terms as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.

      (3) The terms on which financial assistance under this section may be given may, in particular, include provision as to the circumstances in which the assistance must be repaid or otherwise made good to the Secretary of State and the manner in which that is to be done.'.—[Mr. Clappison.]

      Brought up, and read the First time
      Mr. Clappison: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      In Committee, a number of hon. Members paid tribute to the work of the Leasehold Enfranchisement Advisory Service. The service was established shortly after the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 came into force, with joint public and private sector

      915
      funding. Its principal role has been to provide initial information to landlords and tenants on the legislative provisions relating to leasehold enfranchisement. Since its inception, it has dealt with approximately 8, 000 inquiries.
      The Government's commitment to the service has been to provide initial funding for three years, ending in December this year. That commitment will be honoured in full. The commitment was limited to three years because it was envisaged that a growing familiarity with the provisions of the Act would develop in that time. It was thought that leaseholders would be less in need of such an advice service, as a wider range of solicitors, valuers and practitioners would gain experience in that area.
      However, in practice, the progress on enfranchisement has been less rapid than our initial expectations in some respects. Leaseholders have been exercising their rights to lease extension enfranchisement, and the leasehold valuation tribunals have been hearing a number of test cases and resolving disputes between landlords and tenants.
      There is still a way to go and all parties are agreed that there is a useful role for an advice service to perform beyond the end of this year. A further factor is the new package of leaseholders' rights contained in the Bill. They involve new and, in some cases, necessarily complex procedures. The Government believe that there is further scope for an impartial advice service to help in that area.
      The Leasehold Enfranchisement Advisory Service has been funded for the first three years through the Department's special grants programme. Projects supported in that way are expected to generate matching private sector funding with public sector support. That funding would normally have been phased out after the initial three-year period. The purpose of the new clause is therefore to give the Secretary of State a specific power to provide financial support to an advice service dealing with landlord and tenant issues, on a more permanent footing. We shall still seek a substantial private sector contribution, but a further period of support under the special grants programme would not be appropriate.
      My Department will shortly enter into detailed discussions with the Leasehold Enfranchisement Advisory Service about how it envisages the development of its longer-term role. I make no commitment that the Department will defer the funding beyond the end of 1996, but we shall consider the case of the advisory service along with the other competing claims on my Department's resources. The new clause keeps open the possibility of longer-term funding of the service.
      Mr. Raynsford: As the Minister said, new clause 11 was tabled in response to a case made in Committee. I am pleased to say that in Committee we had all-party support on the issue. The right hon. Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke) and the hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire (Mr. Ashby) backed my calls on behalf of the Opposition for continuing funding of the Leasehold Enfranchisement Advisory Service.
      916
      As the Minister rightly acknowledged, the service provides excellent, impartial advice to leaseholders on very complex matters relating to leasehold enfranchisement, and it receives an increasing number of requests for help on aspects that are currently outside its remit. There is, therefore, a case for not only continuous funding for the Leasehold Enfranchisement Advisory Service, but a wider remit to enable it to deal with other leasehold matters, especially disputes relating to service charges and so on, which cause a great deal of concern to leaseholders and about which requests for help are made to the service.
      As the Minister acknowledged, leasehold enfranchisement has not progressed as fast as the Government initially hoped. Whatever the reasons—some of which we shall explore in later debates—there is agreement on both sides of the House that we should assist enfranchisement. The provision of expert advisory services is a very important way of doing so.
      The costs involved in obtaining expert assistance from lawyers and other professionals can be a very serious deterrent to leaseholders, and the availability of a free, expert service is, in my view and that of most people who have studied the matter, essential if the process of leasehold enfranchisement is to proceed. We shall explore other essential issues in later debates.
      For all those reasons, we very much welcome the Government's decision to table the new clause. The Minister was cautious in what he said about how it may be applied. I understand that he cannot give a cast-iron commitment, but he is aware that, under current arrangements, the Leasehold Enfranchisement Advisory Service does not have funding beyond the end of this year—a period of only eight months.
      It is unreasonable for such a service, which provides valuable expertise to numerous leaseholders, to be unable to guarantee its continued operation more than eight months ahead. I hope that the Minister will move swiftly to enter the discussions that he described.
      Mr. David Ashby: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that later amendments relate to further enfranchisement, about which more advice will be required. That makes the service even more important.
      Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. Not only is financial uncertainty hanging over the Leasehold Enfranchisement Advisory Service, but the service is likely to have rather more work if, as a result of our considerations today, we substantially advance the opportunities for enfranchisement.
      For all those reasons, I urge the Minister to enter into discussions urgently with all the parties, to try to ensure that the Leasehold Enfranchisement Advisory Service has the necessary financial resources to maintain its service in the immediately foreseeable future and build on a stronger financial footing for the long term.
      Mr. Peter Brooke: I shall be brief. My constituents enter on both sides of the equation, as advisers and advisees. I declared a tangential and anticipatory interest in Committee, and I declare the same interest now.

      917
      I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for the speed with which the Government have reacted. I only serve quiet notice that we shall maintain vigilance on the conduct of and developments in the conversations.
      Mrs. Diana Maddock: I welcome the Minister's commitment to examining the problem. In Committee, we expressed our appreciation of the valuable work done by the Leasehold Enfranchisement Advisory Service. I am only disappointed that the question whether and when it will definitely be funded remains open-ended. I hope that the Minister will consider the matter and come back to us as soon as possible. There is all-party support, and he is aware that people need advice desperately.
      Hon. Members have pointed out that more advice will be sought in the future. As the costs and difficulties associated with often very complicated legal matters increase, people will need a proper advice service. I urge the Minister not to let the matter slide—although I am sure that hon. Members will ensure that he does not.
      Government new schedule 2—Low rent test: extension of rights—
      Right to enfranchisement
      1. In the Leasehold Reform Act 1967, after section 1A there shall be inserted—
      "Additional right to enfranchisement only in case of houses whose4 rent exceeds applicable limit under section 4.
      1AA.—(1) Where—

      (a) section 1(1) above would apply in the case of the tenant of a house but for the fact that the tenancy is not a tenancy at a low rent, and

      (b) the tenancy falls within subsection (2) below and is not an excluded tenancy,

      this Part of this Act shall have effect to confer on the tenant the same right to acquire the freehold of the house and premises as would be conferred by section 1(1) above if it were a tenancy at a low rent.
      (2) A tenancy falls within this subsection if—

      (a) it is granted for a term of years certain exceeding fifty years, whether or not it is (or may become) terminable before the end of that term by notice given by or to the tenant or by re-entry, forfeiture or otherwise,

      (b) it is for a term fixed by law under a grant with a covenant or obligation for perpetual renewal, unless it is a tenancy by sub-demise from one which is not a tenancy which falls within this subsection,

      (c) it is a tenancy taking effect under section 149(6) of the Law of Property Act 1925 (leases terminable after a death or marriage), or

      (d) it is a tenancy which—

      (i) is or has been granted for a term of years certain not exceeding fifty years, but with a covenant or obligation for renewal without payment of a premium (but not for perpetual renewal), and

      (ii) is or has been once or more renewed so as to bring to more than fifty years the total of the terms granted (including any interval between the end of a tenancy and the grant of a renewal).

      (3) A tenancy is an excluded tenancy for the purposes of subsection (1) above if—

      (a) the house which the tenant occupies under the tenancy is in an area designated for the purposes of this provision as a rural area by order made by the Secretary of State,

      (b) the freehold of that house is owned together with adjoining land which is not occupied for residential purposes, and

      (c) the tenancy was granted on or before the day on which section [Low rent test: extension of rights] of the Housing Act 1996 comes into force.

      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New clause 21

      LOW RENT TEST: EXTENSION OF RIGHTS
      '. Schedule [Low rent test: extension of rights] (which makes provision for conferring an additional right to enfranchisement in relation to tenancies which fail the low rent test and for introducing an alternative to the low rent test in the case of the right of collective enfranchisement and the right to a new lease) shall have effect.'.—[Mr. Gummer.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. John Gummer): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Madam Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government amendment No. 152.
      (4) Where this Part of this Act applies as if there were a single tenancy of property comprised in two or more separate tenancies, then, if each of the separate tenancies falls within subsection (2) above, this section shall apply as if the single tenancy did so.
      (5) The power to make an order under subsection (3) above shall be exercisable by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament."
      2.—(1) In consequence of paragraph 1 above, the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 shall be amended as follows.
      (2) In section l(3A)(b) (extension of rights not to apply to existing lettings by charitable housing trusts), after "1A" there shall be inserted ", 1AA".
      (3) In section 3(3) (provision for aggregation of successive tenancies), after "this Part of this Act" there shall be inserted ", except section 1AA, ".
      (4) In section 9(1C) (price payable by tenant on enfranchisement by virtue of section 1A or 1B), after "1A" there shall be inserted ", 1AA".
      (5) In section 9A(1) (compensation payable where right to enfranchisement arises by virtue of section 1A or 1B), after "1A" there shall be inserted ", 1AA".
      (6) In section 32A(1) (b) (extensions to right to enfranchisement not to apply in relation to existing tenancies of property transferred for public benefit), at the end there shall be inserted "or if section 1AA above were not in force".
      (7) In section 37(4) (treatment for the purposes of Part I of tenancy granted to continue as a periodical tenancy after the expiration of a term of years certain), after this Part of this Act" there shall be inserted ", except section 1AA, ".
      (8) In Part II of Schedule 3 (procedural provisions), in paragraph 6 (which makes provision about the contents of a tenant's notice under Part I), after sub-paragraph
      (1) there shall be inserted—
      "(1A) Where the tenant gives the notice by virtue of section 1AA of this Act, sub-paragraph (1) above shall have effect with the substitution for paragraph (b) of—
      "(b) such particulars of the tenancy as serve to identify the instrument creating the tenancy and show that the tenancy is one in relation to which section 1AA(1) of this Act has effect to confer a right to acquire the freehold of the house and premises;"."
      (9) In that Part of that Schedule, in paragraph 7(4) (admission in landlord's notice of tenant's right to have freehold to be binding on landlord, so far as relating to matters mentioned in section l(l)(a) and (b)), for "mentioned in section l(l)(a) and (b) of this Act" there shall be substituted "relevant to the existence of that right".
      Right to collective enfranchisement
      3.—(1) Chapter I of Part I of the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 (collective enfranchisement in case of tenants of flats) shall be amended as follows.
      (2) Section 5 (qualifying tenants) shall be amended as follows—

      (a) in subsection (1) (which defines a qualifying tenant as a tenant of a flat under a long lease at a low rent), for "at a low rent" there shall be substituted "which is at a low rent or for a particularly long term", and

      (b) in subsection (2)(c) (which excludes from the definition a tenant under a lease granted in breach of the terms of a superior lease which is not a long lease at a low rent), after "rent" there shall be inserted "or for a particularly long term".

      (3) After section 8 there shall be inserted—
      "Meaning of "particularly long term"
      8A.—(1) For the purposes of this Chapter a long lease is for a long term if—

      (a) it is granted for a term of years certain exceeding 50 years, whether or not it is (or may become) terminable before the end of that term by notice given by or to the tenant or by re-entry, forfeiture or otherwise,

      (b) it is for a term fixed by law under a grant with a covenant or obligation for perpetual renewal (other than a lease by sub- demise from one which is not for a particularly long term),

      (c) it takes effect under section 149(6) of the Law of Property Act 1925 (leases terminable after a death or marriage), or

      (d) it is a lease which—

      (i) is or has been granted for a term of years certain not exceeding 50 years, but with a covenant or obligation for renewal without payment of a premium (but not for perpetual renewal), and

      920

      921

      (ii) is or has been renewed on one or more occasions so as to bring to more than 50 years the total of the terms granted (including any interval between the end of a lease and the grant of a renewal).

      (2) A long lease which does not fall within subsection (1) above shall nonetheless be treated for the purposes of this Chapter as being for a particularly long term if it is a long lease by virtue of paragraph (c) or (d) of section 7(1).
      (3) Where this Chapter applies as if there were a single lease of property comprised in two or more separate leases, then, if each of the separate leases is for a particularly long term, this Chapter shall apply as if the single lease were for such a term."
      (4) In section 13(3)(e) (particulars to be included in initial notice which relevant to whether person a qualifying tenant), in sub-paragraph (ii), for "a lease at a low rent" there shall be substituted "at a low rent or for a particularly long term".
      Right to new lease
      4.—(1) Chapter II of that Part (individual right of tenant of flat to acquire new lease) shall be amended as follows.
      (2) In section 39(3) (provisions of Chapter I which apply for the purposes of Chapter II), at the end of paragraph (c) there shall be inserted ", and
      (d) section 8A, ".
      (3) In section 42(3) (particulars to be included in notice by qualifying tenant of claim to exercise right), in paragraph (b) (iii), there shall be inserted at the end "or, in accordance with section 8A (as that section so applies), a lease for a particularly long term".
      5.—(1) In Chapter VII of that Part (general), section 94 (Crown land) shall be amended as follows.
      (2) In subsection (3) (disapplication of restriction imposed by section 3(2) of the Crown Estate Act 1961 on term for which lease may be granted by Crown Estate Commissioners), in paragraph (a), for "at a low rent" there shall be substituted "which is at a low rent or for a particularly long term".
      (3) In subsection (4) (power to shadow statutory rights), for "at a low rent" there shall be substituted "which is at a low rent or for a particularly long term".
      (4) For subsection (12) there shall be substituted—
      "(12) For the purposes of this section "long lease which is at a low rent or for a particularly long term" shall be construed in accordance with sections 7, 8 and 8A.".'
      And the following amendments thereto: (a), in line 9, leave out from 'tenancy' to 'is'.

      (b) in line 14, leave out from beginning to end of line 34.

      (c) in line 47, leave out from beginning to 'this'.

      (d) in line 82, leave out from beginning to end. Government amendment No. 153.

      Mr. Gummer: The new clause and amendments deal with the qualifying condition for enfranchisement rights, either under the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 concerning houses or under the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 concerning flats. I have a particular interest in that area, both as Minister responsible for London and because reference was made in debate to the particular, and some would say peculiar, circumstances of rural areas such as the one that I represent.
      The policy has been to give enfranchisement rights to leaseholders who might be regarded as owner-occupiers. That policy lies at the heart of the discussions: how does one distinguish between those who are leaseholders, as one understands that term, and those who may be leaseholders in the sense that they hold a lease but who have been paying a proper market rent as tenants would?
      922
      In such cases, the lease is a matter of convenience between them and the landlord. It may well have been chosen by either side, or by both sides, at some past date.
      Two tests establish whether the leaseholder is an owner-occupier. First, there is the length of the lease, which should generally be more than 21 years. Secondly, the tenant must pay only a nominal ground rent rather than a market rent. If those two conditions are satisfied, except during the final years of the lease, the tenant is likely to have a greater financial stake in the property than the landlord.
      There has always been a low-rent test. It was a mechanism for distinguishing between the real leaseholder—I use the word "real" in the sense of the person whom we understand to be the leaseholder—and someone who has a lease but who is a tenant in all other respects. The form differs slightly according to the circumstances, but it generally requires that the rent should be less than two thirds of the rateable value of the property. The purpose of the test is to distinguish in the way that I have suggested.
      There are always arguments about how one establishes such a figure, and discussions at every stage have sought to arrive at a sensible position regarding leasehold enfranchisement. There were heated discussions about the principle—and particularly about the mechanisms by which one establishes that principle.

      923
      An amendment was carried in Committee, to remove the low-rent test. That decision was based not on the idea that renting tenants should be given enfranchisement rights, but on the fact that the low-rent test has caused difficulties in practice. In other words, I do not think that people sought to give enfranchisement to those who manifestly were not, in common parlance, leaseholders of the sort that we are describing. They felt, perfectly reasonably, that the present mechanism for distinguishing between the two types of leaseholder is faulty and occasionally leads to anomalies and sometimes to downright hardship.
      There are leases where the rent is technically above the low-rent limit, but is closer to being a nominal ground rent than a rack rent. In some cases, that has arisen by accident, perhaps because properties were not revalued for rating purposes between 1973 and the end of the rating system in 1990, although ground rents crept up slightly in line with inflation. In other cases, some landlords intentionally set rents slightly above the limit. The discussions in Committee were directed at those very people. That is why I accepted the arguments in Committee for reform.
      4.15 pm
      The test currently excludes some tenancies, which, on any reading of the previous legislation, should enjoy enfranchisement rights.
      Mr. Raynsford: Will the Secretary of State now tell the House how many such tenancies exist?
      Mr. Gummer: I cannot say exactly how many there are, but later in my speech I shall tell the hon. Gentleman the precise percentage of tenancies that the measure is intended to cover. I am sure that he will be happy about that, but he must listen to my proposal.
      Mr. Ashby: Does a long lease at a rack rent exist? In my understanding, there is no such thing.
      Mr. Gummer: I have to tell my hon. Friend, for whom I have great respect, that on this occasion, he is wrong. He must not believe that because I cannot tell him how many elephants there are in Africa, there are no elephants in Africa. That is not a reasonable argument. There are such leases. To put it simply, if there were not, my hon. Friend would have no worries, as everything that he seeks would be achieved. There are such leases and it is only reasonable to deal with them equitably. In the same mode in which I have approached the whole issue, I am seeking merely to achieve equity. That seems perfectly reasonable.
      Mr. Ashby: On equity, does my right hon. Friend consider it right that there should be different forms of long lease? Is it not fair for one group of long leaseholders to be treated the same as the other? That is equity.
      Mr. Gummer: If my hon. Friend had followed the argument, he would know that that depends on the nature of the leaseholding. If, to all intents and purposes, a long leaseholder is an owner-occupier who pays a ground rent, that is one class of leaseholder. Other long leaseholders
      924
      pay a full tenant's rent. They are not leaseholders in the sense that he and I understand it or those to whom many of my hon. Friends, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea (Sir N. Scott) and my hon. Friends the Members for Fulham (Mr. Carrington) and for Kensington (Mr. Fishburn) referred—leaseholders who, for one reason or another, are excluded from the enfranchisement legislation. My proposal relates to those people.
      Mr. Raynsford: The Secretary of State will be aware that the Leasehold Enfranchisement Association has enormous experience of enfranchisement. It has represented leaseholders for many years and has done stalwart work to advance enfranchisement. Mrs. Joan South, the secretary of the Leasehold Enfranchisement Association, wrote to me as follows:
      "In our organisation we have never come across a single 'long' lease that has anything like a market rent."
      If the Secretary of State cannot tell us how many such properties exist, will he accept the verdict of the Leasehold Enfranchisement Association that it is a chimera, not reality?
      Mr. Gummer: I wish to make three points to the hon. Gentleman. First, I have made my way through complicated legislation on a whole range of matters, including all the detailed problems of agricultural tenancies and the like, and I have learnt that anyone who suggests that circumstances cannot arise is usually wrong. Such complications need to be considered extremely carefully, and one needs to recognise that even those with experience may well find that their experience is almost entirely with people who see themselves as long leaseholders of the sort with which the Bill is concerned. Therefore, it is perfectly reasonable that those who never have seen themselves as long leaseholders and have always seen themselves as full-blown tenants who happen to have a long lease would not be in touch with the organisation to which the hon. Gentleman referred. I do not find that surprising.
      Mr. Raynsford: Will the Secretary of State give way?
      Mr. Gummer: I wish to give the hon. Gentleman the three reasons, because it is important to face them.
      The second reason is as follows. Let us say that I am entirely mistaken. If so, no harm is done because those few people who may be in that position will find themselves properly protected, and those who are not—I am told by the hon. Gentleman that they are the vast majority, and my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire (Mr. Ashby) said that there are only three or four in the first position—
      Mr. Raynsford: There is none.
      Mr. Gummer: However small the number is, I do not find it possible to believe that they will be disadvantaged. It is possible for a reasonable relationship between landlord and tenant to be entered into, in which the landlord decides that he would like to have a long lease and gives a long lease in permanence to a tenant, who is then responsible for renovations and who pays the full market rent—not a ground rent, not even a pseudo-ground

      925
      rent, nor even a bit above ground rent—as a tenant. That is all that we suggest, and I cannot see that that is a disadvantage.
      My third reason is that it is very important that we should recognise that there are other areas, outside the centre of London, which are thus affected. Some of those areas are in the country and, for large estates in particular, it is part of how they operate to have long leases for proper tenants who are seen as tenants. Happily, continuity still reigns in many of those estates and the long leases are seen as a means of maintaining continuity. I would therefore like to protect those people in particular, and I think that there is no disagreement about them across the Floor of the House.
      Mr. Raynsford: As the Secretary of State will know from studying our amendments, we accept entirely the position on rural areas. We shall debate later an amendment that makes provision for that, because there are genuine problems that we are keen to address. As for the notional existence of long leases at a market rent for which the Secretary of State is making special provisions and creating a new 50-year test in new clause 21, there is no evidence for them. The Leasehold Enfranchisement Association says that it has no evidence, but it has brought substantial evidence of people who will be disadvantaged by the 50-year test that the Secretary of State proposes. Would not it be sensible to reconsider?
      Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman must listen to me when I come to the 50-year test. In contradistinction to the views that he has put forward, those who represent the landlords suggest that there are significant numbers in the long-lease category. All I say to the hon. Gentleman is that it would be better, when considering such matters, to consider them from the point of view of equity. I was brought up to believe that if one person was accounted just, he should not suffer for all the 90 and nine who were not. If that is the case, we should have a system that includes even a small number of cases. My hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire has said that there are only three or four cases—I believe that all the evidence points to many more—but even if that were so, we should take account of them.
      Perhaps it would be better sometimes for people to have the confidence of a long lease even if they were full-blown tenants. To exclude or discourage that option would be a pity. The hon. Gentleman has not so far objected to the principle, but fears the 50-year term. I shall come to that aspect in a moment. I want to establish that we are trying to enfranchise real leaseholders and that it is not unreasonable to distinguish between them and tenants who have a long lease. That distinction is not new, but is found in both the previous substantive pieces of legislation, which introduced a low-rent test to make the distinction. It would be odd if we were suddenly to discover that provision is not needed because no such tenants exist. Landlords believe that they do and have cited examples, so it does not seem unreasonable to make appropriate provision—and to examine the disadvantages of doing so.
      Sir Teddy Taylor (Southend, East): Lest my right hon. Friend be discouraged by constant criticisms and questions, people such as myself complained in respect of the 1993 legislation that while good landlords, such as the
      926
      Duke of Westminster, were being protected by enfranchisement, a large number of retirement leaseholders in properties built by companies such as McCarthy and Stone and others were excluded. It appears that the Government are now proposing that long leases for retirement leaseholders will have the same advantages as other leases. Does my right hon. Friend agree that as that is the case, the Bill is a major step forward and will give rights to tenants who were previously unfairly excluded?
      Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. I have considerable sympathy with the need to enfranchise retirement leaseholders. There are a number of retirement developments in my constituency—as I share with my hon. Friend the clement weather and pleasurable areas of East Anglia, to which many people go to retire and to whom a protected lease is important. I hope that my hon. Friend agrees that there is a distinction between the person who buys accommodation but on a lease, for the obvious reasons in such circumstances, and the person who has a long lease but pays a normal tenancy rent. Everyone has sought to make that distinction year after year. Labour has produced the entirely novel concept that such tenants do not exist. If that is so, why did Labour suggest such a distinction in its legislation and support that distinction in later legislation?
      Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Duke of Westminster is one of the finest landlords in the country? He is marvellous at maintaining his properties and does not charge exorbitant rents. The duke went to great trouble some years ago to ensure that he was allowed to keep properties in London to let to people described as working-class tenants—which he does at considerable financial cost to himself.
      Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend is right to point out that we must be careful not to suggest that the word "landlord" equates with a bad landlord. There are many good landlords in London, but they are not helped by the activities of the kind of person for whom the Bill is primarily designed. There are bad landlords and freeholders, and many of them have recently entered the business. They view their involvement not as a long-term commitment to a part of a city, as do the Westminster or Cadogan estates, but as a means of providing income in ways never envisaged by the freeholding system.
      That is why I personally took the decision that this part of the Bill should include protection. As the Minister responsible for London, I could see how damaging the absence of such protection could be. All that I am trying to introduce is equity. We need to protect people from the activities of poor landlords—or downright bad landlords—but in a way that respects the excellence of the good ones, not least because there is much to be said for encouraging them. One of the problems from which the nation as a whole has suffered is the way in which landlords have been discouraged because there has not been a distinction between the good and the bad. That is what I am trying to do in the new clause.
      Mr. Ashby: I understand what my right hon. Friend is trying to do, but does he not accept that he is turning existing laws upside down? Why not introduce a

      927
      paragraph into the schedule, perhaps in another place, to say that, where the rent on a long lease approximates to the rent, so that a rent officer would establish that, such a test would be absolutely fair, because that is a rack rent? We could say that, if it was within 20 per cent. of a rent that a rent officer would fix for the premises, it would be excluded from enfranchisement. That would deal with the matter.
      4.30 pm
      Mr. Gummer: We have tried all sorts of mixes and they have not stood the test of time. Therefore, I think that my hon. Friend will see—if I am allowed to proceed a little, on the mixture of things that I propose—that what we propose is a helpful way in which to deal with the problem that he sees.
      Some leases of more than 25 years have rack rents, and in those cases the tenant's stake has never been anywhere near as significant as that of the landlord. Some landlords, to whom my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman)—who is still with us but, rather confusingly, has moved to another seat—referred, wish to let properties for rent. They want to give tenants a substantial period of security, and there is no reason why they should not do so. Indeed, there is every reason to make that possible. So it is a question not only of their present number, but of the possibility of having them in the future. Those leases run for 25 to 35 years at market rents, and we need to recognise that we have responsibilities on both sides.
      I want to try to take seriously the argument on which the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford) previously justified enfranchisement, taken from the 1966 White Paper, that the land belongs in equity to the landowner and the house belongs in equity to the leaseholder. That equity would not apply where the rent is a market rent. The Government's new clause, offered as an alternative to the current clause 95, allows tenants with leases of more than 50 years to qualify for enfranchisement rights, irrespective of the rent paid. The first thing that we do is remove the need for a low-rent test when one has such a lease. That applies both to houses and to flats. Those tenants will have to pay a fair market price if they wish to exercise their rights, on the same basis as houses and flats that became enfranchiseable as a result of the 1993 legislation.
      Why 50 years? The fundamental purpose is to make the distinction that we have agreed needs to be made. Most leases are for 99 years or more. When we say 50 years, we are referring to the original length of the lease, not the time that it has to run. Leases were so long—99 years or more—because that was the only way in which people could get a mortgage. Properties would not have been mortgageable if they had had a shorter lease. Therefore, conventional mortgages were almost impossible to obtain on properties when the length of the lease was less than 60 or 70 years. If freeholders wanted to sell a property that had what one would call a proper lease, the lease was bound to be for such a length. Our amendment means that the great majority of leaseholders would no longer need to be concerned about the low-rent test.
      The hon. Member for Greenwich—quite reasonably—is concerned about numbers. The great majority of leases of 50 years or less—the percentage is in the high 90s—
      928
      constitute a specialist market: because they are not mortgageable in normal circumstances, they are usually sold only to cash buyers or to those who can raise bank finance. Such leases are found on some London estates, and sometimes in rural areas, where they are granted as part of a management strategy for looking after a farming estate. The terms vary considerably. Some will be at low rents, while in other instances the figures will be much closer to the full market rent. They are often granted where property is very expensive, and a shorter lease more similar to renting than full ownership may suit some purchasers.
      The hon. Member for Greenwich has tabled amendments to my new schedule that would allow all leases of more than 21 years to enfranchise. The issue between the hon. Gentleman and me therefore concerns a relatively small number of leases with a length of between 21 and 50 years when granted. I accept that the hon. Gentleman does not now wish to extend the arrangement to the countryside, recognising that there are special circumstances there. Let me point out, however, that many of the considerations that make both of us not unhappy with what happens in the countryside—I am trying to put this in as unbiased a way as possible—could apply in towns. I think that that ought to be so, and that it would be better if such an arrangement were more widely used.
      Mr. Raynsford: Like me, the Secretary of State will have received representations from the Country Landowners Association. It specifically points out that arrangements in the countryside essentially revolve around agricultural arrangements. Where are those arrangements likely to be replicated in London?
      Mr. Gummer: I was trying to suggest that what the arrangements essentially revolve round is the need for continuity felt by many estate owners. I do not think that that need for continuity is to be found only in agricultural contexts. I do not disagree with those who want what some large landowners have—the ability to let, not sell, an albeit limited number of properties to real tenants at market rents. Letting such properties on a long lease will confer the continuity that owners of historic estates want in regard to tenants: they are looking not to one generation or even two, but back to many generations and forward to many more. I do not see why we should consider that inequitable; I think that it is rather a good idea, and I do not want to exclude it. Although I am a member of the Country Landowners Association, I am not bound by its view that all the arrangements must revolve around agriculture, horticulture or Welwyn Garden City.
      Mr. Raynsford: I accept, inevitably, that we are not bound by the CLA's views. I am simply trying to establish—and I invite the Secretary of State to agree with me—that there is a fundamental difference between the circumstances applying in rural and agricultural communities and those applying in cities. I remind the right hon. Gentleman that, in its evidence to us, the CLA states:
      "The reasons that surround the letting of houses on farms and estates on long leases are very different from the position in urban areas, where the leasehold system is widespread and akin to a business in its own right."
      Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that?
      Mr. Gummer: I do not know why the hon. Gentleman wants to fall out with me. What the CLA has said is

      929
      perfectly reasonable, but I suggest that what I have said is also reasonable. I have said that the existence of additional reasons why the arrangements are necessary in country areas does not mean that one aspect that is important in the country—continuity, and the wish for continuity that is so much part of long-established estates—should not be replicated in similarly long-established estates in the centre of London. I do not think that there is any difference between us in that regard: I think that my view is perfectly reasonable.
      Ms Glenda Jackson: The ability of the great estates in London to maintain continuity, which is so important to them, is entirely dependent on the financial contributions of their leaseholders. Such continuity surely denies equal continuity to leaseholders and their being able to pass on, in the words of the Prime Minister, what they own to their own. Such an ability is at present denied to leaseholders.
      Mr. Gummer: The hon. Lady must not have been present for all my speech or she would have heard me address precisely that. She and I disagree on almost everything on this earth, and I am right in almost every case. She must accept it from me that it is no good coming into the House, gathering together her prejudices, and assuming that I have said what I have not said. I have in fact said the opposite to that which she assumed, and I am sorry that what has so far been a reasonable debate has been changed by her.
      Ms Jackson rose—
      Mr. Gummer: I will not give way to the hon. Lady if she cannot debate reasonably. We are trying to discuss a fundamental issue. I have spent about 25 minutes trying to explain a crucial issue, and it is not helpful to the House to go over it again.
      The real question is the 50 years and whether it is a sensible figure. I am trying to be as helpful as I can to my right hon. and hon. Friends and to Opposition Members. I took the 50 years from the tax legislation, so it is a natural break point, although I accept that it is not as significant as 21 years is in landlord and tenant legislation. It was suggested on Report during the passage of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967, but I am not absolutely wedded to it.
      My right hon. Friends the Members for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke) and for Chelsea, and my hon. Friends who represent some other constituencies in central London, may wish to argue for a slight change. I shall happily look at any evidence. Although I would not say that the matter concerns no areas outside central London, it concerns almost entirely the centre of London, because only there were such shorter leases with real leaseholders possible. Elsewhere, the mortgageability of the place demanded a longer lease and there were fewer people who could buy relatively expensive properties on a cash basis.
      Mr. Matthew Carrington: I am particularly pleased at my right hon. Friend's flexibility on the 50 years, which is important. I think that he recognises that the 50 years is an arbitrary figure and that it might be better if it were slightly lower. Whatever it should be, it should be pitched so that it enables the maximum number of people to benefit from the legislation. That
      930
      could mean 45 years, so I am very grateful that my right hon. Friend has expressed his willingness to be flexible and to consider changes.
      Mr. Gummer: As I said, I should like to look carefully at the examples. In setting the period at 50 years, we are dealing with up to 90 per cent. of cases. I am very happy to say to my hon. Friend that I do not want to exclude people. I am trying to do what previous legislation has sought to do, but—many of us feel—has not achieved. I am trying to find a way in which one can make a distinction between the leaseholder who is in our sense a real leaseholder, the sort of person to whom the hon. Member for Hampstead referred—
      Ms Glenda Jackson: And Highgate.
      Mr. Gummer:—the sort of person to whom the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson) referred. If she had been present, she would have heard that I was trying to distinguish, as Labour as well as Conservative legislation has tried to do, between such real leaseholders and the sort of person who is affected by a long lease in a wholly different way, because he is a full-time tenant in the sense that he pays full rent, and the lease is long because it gives continuity and stability.
      I want to meet the concerns of my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire, so I hope that he will be happy with what I have done. I do not think that there is any longer any disagreement about rural areas.
      If the House accepts the amendments, some consequential amendments will have to be made. In particular, there will need to be an opportunity for landlords to apply for estate management schemes, to cover properties that become newly enfranchised as a result of the changes. The Government will bring forward the necessary amendments in another place. I shall be able to consider at that time any suggestions made by my right hon. and hon. Friends and Opposition Members.
      I hope that the House recognises that, in the proposals and with the flexibility that I am offering, I have sought to reach a reasonable solution on a very complicated matter. I have sought in a spirit of compromise to find an answer. I took issue with the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate because the accusations that she flung at me were exactly the opposite of what I said. I want to enfranchise all those who are real leaseholders, precisely for the reasons that she raised. I do not want to consider all landlords as bad landlords. Nor do I want to ignore landlords who have shown themselves to be not only poor. but thoroughly bad.
      As the Minister with responsibility for London and because I recognised the concern, I was the one who proposed the change to the Bill. I hope that the House will accept that the compromise will meet the overwhelming range of worries, and at the same time the good freeholder, who does his job properly—the good landlord who has proper tenants and wants them to have a long lease—will be protected in equity.
      4.45 pm
      Mr. Ashby: It would be churlish of me if I were not to say how grateful I am that the Government have tabled the new clauses and the new schedule, following as they do the decision in Committee. The Committee was very

      931
      good, interesting and genial, and there was much agreement in it. On the other hand, we give with one hand and we take away with another. I find that very worrying.
      As a deselected Member, who cannot expect to be in the next Parliament, I feel much freer to talk about political matters than others. I am conscious that we are talking about people who often own fairly expensive property and may well be expected to prop up a Conservative majority in a future Conservative Government. It struck me that not only would it be wrong for the Government not to agree in principle with my point, but they would shoot themselves in the foot if they did not. I want to put that warning across.
      We are talking about abolishing the low-rent test. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will listen to me, as I hope to be constructive. The new clause goes only half way. It follows the wrong line of reasoning. Leases of 21 years and above have always been accepted—it is enshrined in principle and in law—as long leases, and that is all that we have to think about and maintain.
      I am not one who would knock a landlord. Increasingly, through the policies of my right hon. Friend and the Government, the rented sector is expanding. It is a very buoyant sector, and I support it unreservedly. There is absolutely no reason why anybody should not establish that he wants to grant someone—if a nice family, whom he has known for a long time, wants to live in a property permanently—a long lease of 25 years at a rack rent. There is no reason why he should not do that for 30 or 40 years, or why he should not let it pass to the children at a rack rent.
      One would have to find several things in such a lease, such as regular rent reviews, and one would expect the rack rent or the rent being paid to be slightly—not a long way—behind the market rent. The rent might be five or 10 years behind, according to rent reviews, which is to the advantage to the tenant of a long lease. There will undoubtedly also be such features in the long lease as provisions covering maintenance and alterations to property, allowing the tenant to make certain alterations. Many of those leases would cover derelict property, expecting the tenant to bring it up to standard before he starts paying rent. One finds such situations with a long lease, and we should be wholly supportive of them.
      My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is trying to examine and to deal with the matter, but he is starting at the wrong end of it. He is putting 50 years on to the lease and turning the law upside down. That is absolutely the wrong way in which to go about it, and I beg him to consider the matter again.
      The matter is complicated, but it is not beyond the wit of all the officials sitting in the Box over there to produce clauses that will describe precisely and exactly the type of tenancy that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State wants to protect. He will know that that is a possibility, because a paragraph in new schedule 2 could introduce the provision that it would be a defence to an enfranchisement for a freeholder to allege that it is a tenancy not covered by the low-rent test but a proper tenancy at a market rent.
      The freeholder would be able to give evidence of rents for property on either side of his property and for similar properties in the area. The same type of procedure would be
      932
      adopted as that for the application for enfranchisement. He would be able to produce such evidence and show that it might not be quite the market rent, but it may be within 20 or 30 per cent. of it. He would be able to show that it is not a tenancy that falls within the type of tenancy to be franchised. That is the way in which to go about this matter.
      What we are doing is talking percentages—possibly 90-plus percentages—on the basis that some landlords have been talking about tenancies that match what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has talked about, but, "No, we cannot produce any numbers." The hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford) referred to the Leasehold Enfranchisement Association. We cannot throw aside such people, as has been suggested, and say, "These people do not know what they are talking about." These people—such as lawyers—are knowledgeable about the property market.
      I have never come across a tenancy such as that described by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I have no doubt that such tenancies could be created—anything can be created in a legal document—but they are not the norm. It is no good legislating for a handful of people when there will be so much inequity for the majority. As I said in my intervention, one must be equitable about this. We cannot treat one lot of people differently from another. One cannot say, "I am going to give it to you, but I am not going to give it to you."
      People have written to me about the issue. Having, in Committee, voted on the matter with the Opposition, I have had many marvellous letters from people. It was heartening to receive such letters—only to find that those people's hopes will be dashed. I feel that we are letting people down—our own people and all sorts of people. I believe that we are absolutely wrong about this issue.
      I am glad to hear that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is flexible about the 50-year issue, but I beg him to be more flexible—or I beg him to be inflexible. I beg him to examine what is a long lease, which is 21 years, and then to redefine the exclusions and say, "These long leases are not covered by this section." He is absolutely right that it would be totally inequitable if we were to allow enfranchisement in cases in which there is a landlord who is genuinely trying to help people and genuinely letting property at close to the rack rent. As I said, the rent will be close and will not be absolutely up to the market rent because, by its very nature, it will be a few years behind.
      Let us protect leaseholders. Why not table new clauses to protect them? I beg my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State not to play around with the issue—because this is playing around. When one gives something with one hand and takes it away with another, one creates real enemies and a great deal of unhappiness. We found that to be true on a number of occasions. Legislation that comes into effect in two or three years' time gives time for opposition to mount. It would be wrong, and totally inequitable, to give with one hand and to take away with the other.
      My right hon. Friend the Secretary has my agreement entirely on his reasoning, but I beg him to re-examine the issue. I ask him to go back to the standard that we all now accept: it is equitable, just and right that a 21-year lease is a long lease. We must maintain that period; we cannot take it away. There will be cases when there is a form of lease that should be protected from enfranchisement, and that is what we must protect. Let us get down to it and define that, because the schedule and new clauses do not.
      Mr. Raynsford: I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire (Mr. Ashby), who spoke movingly about the problems that will be created if the Government's new schedule is passed without amendment, and who also has done a great service to leaseholders by his brave decision to support in Committee our amendment to remove the low-rent test.
      In speaking to this group of new clauses and new schedule, I should like in particular to explain why we have tabled the amendments (a) to (d) to new schedule 2, about which I should say two things immediately.
      First, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am grateful to you and to Madam Speaker for allowing the starred amendments to be debated today. The Government gave us an undertaking that they would table their amendments to appear on last Thursday's Order Paper, to allow us time to prepare our amendments to them. That of course was necessary because of the amendments' immense complexity, as all hon. Members understand about leasehold amendments. Unfortunately, the Government—for reasons beyond the Minister's control—were not able to honour that undertaking. Therefore, the new schedule appeared too late for us to be able to table amendments to it that would be in order without being starred. I am grateful to the Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration—who is not in the Chamber—for agreeing that we should approach Madam Speaker, asking that those amendments be taken today.
      Secondly, I should explain to the House that, I am afraid, the gremlins have got at schedule new schedule 2. If hon. Members study it closely, they will discover that, in the numbers down the left-hand side, there is a gap of seven rather than five lines between numbers 10 and 15. Any assiduous hon. Member who is trying to follow where our amendments to the new schedule should fit in will, therefore, find himself in some difficulty if he follows the numbers as printed. I advise hon. Members to assume that the right line comes two before the number printed, from number 15 onwards. I hope that that will be helpful to hon. Members in understanding the technical details, although I shall explain in much more detail why, in our view, the amendments are essential.
      5 pm
      We are dealing with one of the crucial—indeed, one of the defining—issues that the House must resolve if leaseholding enfranchisement is to proceed as an effective policy for the benefit of the hundreds of thousands of leaseholders who long to own the freehold of their homes. In theory at least, there is political unanimity on the merits of the policy of enfranchisement. The then Labour Government introduced the Leasehold Reform Act 1967, which gave large numbers of leaseholders in houses the opportunity to buy the freehold and so, in many cases, to avoid the fear of homelessness on the expiry of their lease. The Act was unquestionably a great success.
      The present Government introduced the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993, which aimed to give similar rights to leaseholders in flats to buy the freehold of their homes collectively. When he moved the enfranchisement provisions in Committee, the then Minister for Housing and Planning, who is now the Secretary of State for Transport, spoke of the inherent problems of the leasehold framework. I should like to quote his words because it is important that the House should be aware of the Government's policy, as stated in 1992. He said:
      934
      "there are two substantial disadvantages with leasehold tenure. First, a lease is a wasting asset. The value of the leaseholder's interest declines inexorably as the term expires. At times of rapidly rising house prices, such as the 1980s, that decline may have been offset by inflation, but in the longer term the value of a leasehold flat falls. That poses a particular problem for the majority of people who must buy their flats with a mortgage.
      Leasehold as a form of tenure sits uneasily with today's financial regime for funding owner-occupation. Lenders normally insist that the unexpired term of a lease is at least double the length of the mortgage, so that there is adequate security throughout its term. However, that means that leasehold properties become increasingly difficult to mortgage—and hence to sell—once the lease becomes less than perhaps 60 years. So a 99-year lease, which might have cost the same as a freehold, may be tradeable for only 20 or 30 years before its value begins to fall quite sharply. There is a market for fag-end leases in central London among cash buyers, but that is not typical.
      Secondly, control of the property remains with the freeholder. That is a particular problem with flats. Although those living in the flats will have effectively paid for the building and are responsible for all the costs of upkeep and insurance, they are in the hands of a freeholder who has only a small residual interest. Increasingly, freeholds and reversionary head leases are coming into the hands of speculators and people with short-term interests who seek to maximise returns. They do not have the long-term interests in the property and the tenants shown by the best of the remaining old-style paternalistic landlords. Those problems are at their worst where direct conflicts of interests occur between the freeholder on the one hand and the leaseholder on the other.—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 10 November 1992; c. 31–32.]
      Having spelt out the inherent disadvantages, the Minister made it clear that the Government's policy was to move away from leasehold as a form of tenure.
      In a subsequent sitting of the Committee, the Minister said emphatically:
      "The Bill is carefully structured so that not everybody has the right to a new lease. Its purpose is to move away from leasehold as a form of tenure, and that is why its thrust is towards encouraging enfranchisement rather than leasehold extension."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 12 November 1992; c. 73.]
      That was a clear commitment to leasehold enfranchisement. At that stage, it was expected that the Government would introduce a commonhold Bill to create the new tenure of commonhold, which would be similar to the Australian strata title system, under which people living in flats could own their home individually and the whole block collectively, thereby getting out of the landlord-tenant relationship which has proved a bugbear in much of the leasehold system.
      Sadly, that Bill has not yet materialised, despite considerable pressure from many hon. Members on both sides of the House and the efforts of the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Mrs. Lait), who introduced a private Member's Bill earlier this year with the objective of achieving commonhold. She had the misfortune of seeing it talked out on Second Reading by hon. Members on her own side of the House.
      While there has been no progress on commonhold, the hopes for extensive enfranchisement which arose from the 1993 Act have generally been disappointed. The Secretary of State conceded in an earlier intervention that the number of people enfranchising was fewer than had been hoped for. Only a limited number of leaseholders in flats have to date successfully negotiated the process of enfranchisement and acquired the freehold of their home. That does not reflect a lack of interest on the part of leaseholders. On the contrary, to my knowledge, hundreds

      935
      of thousands of leaseholders would love to buy the freehold of their home, but are frustrated by the many obstacles that stand in their way.
      Some of the obstacles are financial and based around the valuation arrangements, the costs of pursuing an enfranchisement claim and other such matters. The hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire highlighted some of those problems in Committee. Some of the obstacles relate to the complex rules which govern who may and who may not qualify, of which the low-rent test is one. We shall deal with others later today.
      The low-rent test is one of the most objectionable obstacles. It is, as I shall seek to demonstrate, unnecessary. It is arbitrary in its impact and it has caused serious injustices. That is why in Committee, we moved successfully, with the support of the hon. Members for North-West Leicestershire, for Belfast, North (Mr. Walker) and for Christchurch (Mrs. Maddock), amendments to abolish the low-rent test. Our success in that and other amendments has struck a vital blow for leaseholders. It is fundamental that that progress should not be undermined today, as it will be if Government new schedule 2 is passed unamended.
      Let us examine in detail the low-rent test. In effect, there are three tests; it is not a single test. The first test covers leases initially granted before April 1963. The ground rent must be less than two thirds of the letting value for the leaseholder to qualify to enfranchise. The second test covers leases granted between April 1963 and April 1990. The ground rent must be less than two thirds of the rateable value. The third test covers leases granted since April 1990. In order to qualify, the ground rent must be less than £250 outside London and £1, 000 a year in London.
      I suspect that simply by describing the hugely complex arrangements, I have helped to advance my case for their abolition. The figures are arbitrary and their impact is capricious. They provide ample scope for reluctant landlords to frustrate the wishes of their leaseholders to buy the freehold. Let me give just one example, which I quoted in Committee. It involves a lady who wrote to me early this year in the following terms. She is a leaseholder living at 78 Cadogan place in London. Her name is Mrs. Loder Dyer. She said:
      "I wrote to the Prime Minister in 1992 when his Government's Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Bill was being considered by Parliament. At that time leaseholders such as myself were assured that we would be able to buy our freeholds. This has proved well nigh impossible.
      I acquired my long leasehold house on the Cadogan Estate in 1949. It was requisitioned during the war and was derelict. To restore, improve and maintain it over many years has been a great personal and financial sacrifice, particularly since my husband died.
      The Cadogan Estate refused to renew my lease. Their solicitors wrote it 'would be the appropriate course for them to institute possession proceedings' against me at the end of the lease which would force me out of my only home. They know I have no statutory security of tenure because I'm disadvantaged by London's high rateable values.
      As soon as the Leasehold Reform Bill became law in 1993, I had to exercise the only statutory right open to me by giving notice to my freeholders of my intention to acquire the freehold of my home. They would not admit my claim, obstructing me calculatingly on the sole point that my annual ground rent of 100 was not a low rent.
      936
      They knew, in the case of leases granted between 1939 and 1963, I would have to prove that the ground rent is not more than two thirds of the letting value at the start of the lease. This has been the most tortuous and time consuming task for me and my experienced advisers.
      I have been forced to go to the County Court on legal aid to establish the letting value. Despite having one of the acknowledged experts in such matters, the Judge completely failed to understand the complexities of how to ascertain the letting value of a lease granted over forty years ago. I now have no other recourse but to seek justice in the Court of Appeal. In a further attempt to obstruct me my freeholders are seeking to raise arguments not previously relied on by them.
      The huge financial costs and the distressing personal effect upon me has severely impaired my health. My lease is a long lease at a low rent. It should fully qualify under the legislation. I am still no nearer achieving my vital legal right. I must earnestly seek your help that steps will be taken to remove this disastrous anomaly."
      In case anyone should believe that that is just one hard case, let me also give the House—
      Mr. Ashby: There are hundreds.
      Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman is right, but let me give the House the benefit of one of the country's leading experts on the subject: chartered surveyor Mr. Man-Johnson, partner in Man-Johnson and Stevens, who wrote to me at the same time and whose evidence I also quoted to the Committee. He wrote as follows:
      "I have no hesitation in saying that section 4(1) of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 is extremely difficult to interpret in any particular case. It affects only leases starting before April 1963, so the valuer is put to proof as to the letting value of a property more than 33 years ago. Frequently I find that the County Court has serious problems in understanding the valuation aspects of a case, and more often than not, the matter goes to appeal."
      He then cited a series of cases and concluded:
      "Although most of these mistakes were put right on appeal, many lessees fall by the wayside. I have just settled two cases where the claims were lodged 18 years ago in February 1978, and the lessees have lived under the threat of Court action and uncertainty throughout the interim … From time to time, I am instructed to advise on doubtful cases under section 4(1); only too frequently I am obliged to include words in my report such as 'I am certain that the rent at the start of the lease was indeed low within the meaning of the Act, but I am far from certain that I would be able to prove it in Court.' The section works in a capricious manner, and in my opinion it often does prevent proper claims under the Act from getting through the qualifying process."
      The low-rent test, therefore, is complex, arbitrary and capricious in its impact. Its result is serious injustices, not to mention appalling costs to leaseholders who have to try to argue their case through a variety of different channels.
      So why is that arcane provision there in the first place? The Secretary of State rightly and reasonably said that a Labour Government put it in the 1967 Act and asked why it was there. We contend that it is a product of history for which there may have been justification in 1967, but that it has continued long after there ceased to be any justification for its continuation. The purpose of the low-rent test and the justification offered by the Government for its retention is that it is designed to distinguish leases from tenancies. A lease is sold at a premium and, in consequence—so the argument goes—there is a low ground rent. By contrast, a tenancy is let without a premium at a correspondingly higher rental.
      Twenty to 30 years ago, when all tenancies were subject to Rent Acts controls, some tenancies may have been granted—indeed created—by landlords on terms

      937
      designed to evade those Acts' provisions. As such, those terms could, without a low-rent test, have been confused with a lease. We accept that, but times have changed. Most tenancies are now let on assured shorthold tenancies and no landlord is going to offer a tenancy for a period lasting more than 21 years when he can get a market rent by letting on an assured or assured shorthold tenancy—the latter requiring a term of no more than six months—so the situation in which the test was incorporated in 1967 no longer applies. If there ever was a case for the low-rent test, it has certainly passed. Remember that, to qualify, leaseholders must demonstrate that they have a lease lasting 21 years or more—that is the key distinction between a lease and a tenancy. That is properly recognised as the fundamental distinction.
      5.15 pm
      In case anyone still has any doubt on the issue, as my final piece of evidence on this point, let me call the Lord Chancellor's Department. In framing its proposals for the introduction of commonhold, which, as I have explained, was designed to provide an alternative tenure to leasehold, the Lord Chancellor's Department considered whether there was a need for a low-rent test. Its conclusion in 1990, when it published a consultation on commonhold, was that a low-rent test would not be appropriate and was not necessary. It was unambiguous about it. It found no need for a low-rent test to distinguish commonholds from tenancies, even though it envisaged people being able to convert to commonholds from leaseholds. The same logic applies to leaseholds. If the Lord Chancellor's Department six years ago said that there was no need for a low-rent test, surely the Department of the Environment can come to the same conclusion.
      The low-rent test is a complex anachronism. It is not necessary, yet it causes serious problems and injustices, blocking the way to leasehold enfranchisement for all too many leaseholders, so why are the Government not supporting the Committee decision to abolish the low-rent test? It is simply because, as in 1987 and 1993, the Government are hamstrung: unfortunately, their supposed commitment to leasehold reform is countered by the pressure from the large landed interests, which remain utterly resistant to the concept of leasehold reform. Unfortunately, they continue to exercise far too great an influence on the Government's policies. Some people suspect that that is because the Government—or the governing party—are in too many respects financially dependent on some of those interests.
      The resistance of those landed interests made the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987, supposedly designed to safeguard leaseholders, unworkable. As we will discuss in subsequent debates, to our knowledge, no one has been able to benefit from the provisions of part II and part III of the 1987 Act, which are supposed to give protection to leaseholders against bad landlords, because the procedures are so complex and tortuous. There is so much scope for costs to mount against the leaseholder that leaseholders have not been able to make use of it. Landlords have found it an easy device to get around.
      There was similar resistance on the part of the big landowners in 1993 as a result of the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act, which was designed, as the Minister at the time, now Secretary of State for Transport, said, to give enfranchisement opportunities to 750, 000 leaseholders. The vast majority
      938
      have not been able to do so because, again, the big landowners nobbled the Government and, through a series of amendments, created legislation that is so riddled with anomalies and so full of loopholes that it is virtually impossible for all except the bravest and the most determined leaseholders to get through it.
      If the Government push through their proposed new schedule 2, it will be one more surrender to the big landed interests, and will set up yet another obstacle to enfranchisement when, ostensibly, the low-rent test obstacle is being removed.
      Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman said that parts II and III of the Landlord and Tenant Act had never been used. I do not think that he is right on that. I thought that I would ask when it was last used. I am sure that he will be pleased to know that, only last week, in the Wandsworth county court, a group of tenants was able to acquire compulsorily its freehold under part III. I do not see why he should be unhappy about its use. It is true that I want to make it rather easier to use, but it is used already.
      Mr. Raynsford: I am delighted to hear that, but I said what I did because on two previous occasions-in 1992–93, when we were debating the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993, and again in Committee on the Bill now before us—I put it to Ministers that we had no evidence of cases successfully coming through under the 1987 Act, and they could not give me chapter and verse.
      I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman's colleagues could not provide the evidence, and I am delighted that he can provide it now. However, I am sure that he will accept that, none the less, the legislation has proved largely ineffective. If it is not ineffective, why does he propose to change the procedure, with a leasehold valuation taking the place of the court in relation to the transfer of management, which we shall discuss later?
      Mr. Gummer: No one suggests that the 1987 Act is effective enough, but in this debate, in which it is easy to overstate certain matters, we must get the balance right. I thought that the hon. Gentleman strayed somewhat into the realms of fantasy when he talked about the relationship between myself, for example, and the great landed interests. I found what he said amusing, and enjoyed it, but it did not have much connection with reality or truth. I am merely suggesting that accuracy is important here.
      Mr. Raynsford: I am happy to tell the Secretary of State that I entirely accept the need for accuracy. I have tried to be scrupulously accurate, and I immediately accepted his statement that there had been some use of the 1987 Act. However, I have explained that I had no knowledge of that use because his colleagues had not been able to provide me with chapter and verse.
      Mr. Ashby: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Raynsford: May I finish my answer? Then I shall happily give way to the hon. Gentleman.
      The 1987 Act promised a great deal and failed to deliver. So did the 1993 Act. When the Secretary of State tries to persuade the House that landed interests have no influence, will he explain the input of the British Property Federation to new schedule 2?
      Mr. Ashby: Will the hon. Gentleman accept that, in response to my inquiries I, too, have found that the 1987

      939
      Act has hardly been used at all? It is incredibly difficult to use, although I am delighted to hear that, in ornithological terms, one swallow has made the summer.
      Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point.
      At this stage, perhaps we should consider the two main effects of new schedule 2. First, it will exclude a limited number of properties in rural areas let as part of agricultural arrangements on terms involving long leases, but with no premium payable. As we have already established in earlier exchanges, the Country Landowners Association has made a case for the exemption of such properties. We understand that there are not many of them—perhaps 200 or 300 in the whole country. Nevertheless, the CLA's case for their exclusion is valid, and our amendments (a) to (d) would provide for the exclusion of such properties on the face of the Bill.
      The second feature of new schedule 2, however, is very different, and creates an entirely new obstacle by establishing a 50-year qualifying period during which the low-rent test would still apply. Leases of 50 years or less will remain subject to the low-rent test. There is no justification for that arbitrary new test. The Secretary of State himself has conceded that 50 years is an entirely arbitrary limit. By contrast, 21 years is well established as the period that defines the distinction between a lease and a tenancy. I have yet to hear any convincing argument for adding a further test of whether the lease was for a period of 50 years or longer.
      Indeed, the British Property Federation, whose representatives probably spent much time with the Secretary of State and his officials—
      Mr. Gummer indicated dissent.
      Mr. Raynsford: They certainly spent time trying to talk to me about the subject—and they could not provide any convincing justification for the period of 50 years.
      We are considering a Government new schedule that would create an entirely new test that would significantly disadvantage individuals with leases shorter than 50 years. It would be capricious and arbitrary in its impact, just as the existing low-rent test has been. No justification has been advanced for it. The Secretary of State himself cannot produce figures to justify it. We do not know how many people may be affected. However, we do know that, if the new schedule is agreed, it will create criteria that will deny to many leaseholders the opportunity to enfranchise, and will provide yet another opportunity for freeholders to seek to frustrate leaseholders' hopes.
      As evidence, I can do no better than refer to the case to which I alluded earlier—that of Mrs. Loder Dyer, who found herself blocked from enfranchisement by the low-rent test. The abolition of that test at last offered her the chance to buy her freehold, for which she had longed for many years. Imagine her horror when she discovered that new schedule 2 would dash her hopes yet again.
      Mrs. Loder Dyer wrote to me on 26 April, and the House should know the terms in which she wrote:
      "Dear Mr. Raynsford,
      Re: Low Rent Test—Housing Bill
      940
      Mrs. Joan South of the Leasehold Enfranchisement Association telephoned me yesterday evening to notify me of the Government's intentions to amend the low rent test, namely to confine it to those with leases of 50 years or less. This is a catastrophe and it is quite unjustifiable.
      I have a 45¾ year lease and therefore will again be discriminated against by this Government. There are many others in a similar position to me who stand to lose their homes as they have no statutory protection.
      I attach for your convenience a copy of my original letter to you which you kindly read out to the Standing Committee"—
      that is the letter that I have already read to the House—
      "I sincerely hope that there will be some means open to you to persuade sufficient Conservative and Opposition MPs to examine their consciences on this matter when a vote is taken."
      That is precisely what we shall do. The Secretary of State said earlier that if even one person suffered an injustice, that would be wrong and unacceptable, and that we must not create such a situation. Yet he proposes to cause injustice to that woman and to many other people, on the basis of no evidence, no figures and no justification whatever, simply relying on a hunch that a 50-year test is somehow appropriate.
      That move will merely create one more unreasonable, unjustified anomaly in legislation that has for too long been bugged by unreasonable anomalies and arbitrary distinctions of that nature, which have created injustices. Our amendment to the new schedule, while accepting the rural exemption—the change suggested by the Country Landowners Association—for which there is justification, would remove the arbitrary and unjustified 50-year test that the Government seek to introduce, which will discriminate so unfairly against people such as Mrs. Loder Dyer.
      Mrs. Loder Dyer is not alone. The Leasehold Enfranchisement Association tells me that there are many others. The hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire, too, knows that. As a result of his brave vote in favour of leasehold enfranchisement earlier this month, he has had a big mailbag. Many leaseholders would suffer a serious injustice if the Government did not accept our amendments (a) to (d) to new schedule 2, and I therefore hope that the House will stand up for their interests, rather than leaving them to be betrayed again.
      By voting for our amendments, the House can demonstrate that it is determined to bring justice at last to all the leaseholders whose hopes have been so cruelly disappointed in the past. If Conservative Members, knowing as they do that what we are advocating is right, none the less decide to support the Government in the Lobby, they will demonstrate in the clearest possible way that they are prepared to subordinate the interests of their leaseholder constituents and the interests of justice to the short-term interests of political expediency, and to pressure from the party Whips.
      That would be wrong, and if Conservative Members do it, we shall have no hesitation in ensuring that leaseholders, of whom there are many throughout the country, are well aware of the fact that tonight they voted to deny leaseholders the justice that they deserve. I hope that that will not happen. I hope that Conservative Members who know the justice of our argument will join us in saying to the Government that leasehold reform must go through.
      We cannot go on with shabby compromises that create more obstacles and problems, and that ultimately deny the object that all of us say that in principle we support—

      941
      leasehold enfranchisement. If that is to become a reality, we have to sweep away the anomalies and loopholes that provide easy opportunities for the enemies of enfranchisement to block the way of leaseholders. Our amendments are just; the issue is simple.
      Mr. Ashby: Would not the right way to deal with this be for the Government to accept the amendments and, in another place, add a clause that clearly defines the sort of tenancies that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has been talking about?
      Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman, perfectly reasonably, seeks a compromise. I put it to him that the right compromise, which we have adopted, is to move the amendment to new schedule 2. Where there is a genuine reason, such as the rural tenancies, for an exemption, we are prepared to accept it, but something that is based on conjecture and speculation, such as the arbitrary figure of 50 years—which he knows is unjustified—cannot remain in the Bill.
      We would be irresponsible to allow the Bill to proceed when it contains measures that we know in our hearts to be wrong. Our amendments are right. They are a compromise and accept the need for justifiable safeguards. I sincerely hope that all hon. Members who are aware of the significance and importance of the issue will, in Mrs. Loder Dyer's words, examine their conscience when they vote. I hope that they will vote with us in favour of amendments (a) to (d).
      5.30 pm
      Mrs. Maddock: It must be clear to the Secretary of State that there is cross-party support for dealing with leasehold enfranchisement, which was not properly tackled in 1993. In Committee, there was all-party support for the view that we had to get it right this time.
      The problems have been around for several years. We have been incredibly well briefed by those who want real change and to get it right. The hon. Members for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford) and for North-West Leicestershire (Mr. Ashby), and the right hon. Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke), brought their expertise to bear in Committee. I asked the Minister to take account of all the lobbying and discussions that had taken place, and, if he could not accept our amendments then, to try to settle the matter once and for all and to get it right on Report.
      Many people have suffered greatly in trying to deal with what can only be described in many cases as a legislative nightmare. In Committee, I pleaded with the Minister to turn those nightmares into sweeter dreams. I am disappointed that today we have nightmares only slightly less worse than those that we had before. The Government amendments and new clauses are not in line with the will of the Committee, which had all-party support. They attempt to reverse the vote in Committee.
      Mr. Gummer: Does the hon. Lady agree that to say that a nightmare is only slightly less worse when our proposals apply to well over 90 per cent. of cases is to overdo the perfectly reasonable case that she is putting forward?
      Mrs. Maddock: I still believe, having been advised by others with experience in the matter, that there will
      942
      continue to be many nightmares. That is shown by many of the eloquent examples that have been given today. We have all had letters from people whose nightmares will continue if the Government's proposals are passed.
      The Government have made two attempts to get this right. First, in Committee, we had to wait for their proposals, and had little time to discuss them. On the second attempt, the Opposition had to plead with Madam Speaker to ensure that we got amendments tabled for today. This is the third attempt. The Secretary of State said that, when it goes to another place, there will be other attempts to change the Bill and get it right.
      There is plenty of evidence from individual groups caught up in the problems of leasehold enfranchisement to allow Government to get the legislation right. The Secretary of State has had helpful suggestions from many hon. Members today. I cannot understand why it is so difficult to get it right. It simply requires the political will.
      The plea of the hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire summarised the Committee's cross-party view that we should keep the 21-year period. By all means let him come back with exclusions, but can the Secretary of State please propose better exclusions and get it right? There is plenty of evidence to allow him to. He has a Department to deal with it. I hope that he will listen carefully today. We may be successful in the Lobby. I cannot emphasise enough the cross-party support outside the House for getting it right, keeping the 21 years and ending the nightmare that people will still suffer in dealing with such matters.
      Mr. Carrington: I am grateful for the opportunity to participate in this debate. As I was not on the Committee, I have sometimes felt that I have been listening to a quarrel that has been going on for some time, which has continued into Report.
      It has been a long battle to get leasehold reform. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the huge advances that he has made in the Bill. I greatly welcome the changes in new clause 21 and new schedule 2. They will go a long way to remedying the problems that face people in trying to get enfranchisement under their existing leasehold. There are still problems, but they involve less the legalities of what constitutes a long lease than what in reality is a long lease and what was recognised as a long lease by the parties when they entered into it. We must get equity between the rights of the leaseholder and the genuine rights of the freeholder.
      I have long campaigned for the rights for leaseholders and for their right to be enfranchised, because I well know from experience in my constituency and across London of the great problems that have been caused to leaseholders by the evil practices of a few freeholders. However, they are a small number. It is only right that legislation, which by its nature is retrospective, to allow enfranchisement should recognise that freeholders have certain rights.
      It has been suggested that the low-rent test should be abolished, and an amendment to that effect was passed in Committee. That would mean that any lease longer than 21 years would qualify for enfranchisement. We must consider whether, in practice, leaseholders and freeholders signed leases 21 or more years ago with the intention that they were long leases, or whether they recognised that the arrangement between them would come to an end in the

      943
      fulness of time. There is no question but that, when parties entered into a 99-year lease, it was a surrogate for selling the freehold. However, when it comes down to 21 years, the question is much more clouded.
      Fifty years may well be a reasonable compromise. It certainly encompasses most of the abuses. It does not encompass them all, but most of the problems arise with leaseholds created in the late 1950s, the 1960s and the 1970s. They were created in London, when the big mansion blocks were converted from rented to leasehold properties, and in the mass of conversions of terraced property in the 1960s and 1970s. Those are the areas in which there have been the most abuses.
      For the most part, those problems will be remedied by the 50-year rule. As I made clear in an intervention, I have doubts about whether 50 years is precisely the right term. I have little doubt that 21 years is probably too short. The balance probably lies somewhere between. Perhaps, as I suggested in my intervention, 45 years would deal with more problems than 50.
      The hon. Member for Greenwich—an old sparring partner of mine from years ago—mentioned a case of great injustice faced by a lady who had written to him. Her lease was 45¾ years, so she would benefit if there was a small tinkering of the 50 years down to 45. I have no particular brief for 45 years, and have not done any studies to find out whether that is the right period—it might well be 40 years. I do know, however, that we have to find the right balance.
      I urge my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to look hard to ensure that we get a period that benefits the maximum number of people with the minimum injustice to freeholders, who entered into perfectly reasonable transactions all those years ago in the belief that they would be protected by the law, and that it would not be changed retrospectively.
      Examples are important in this context. In London after the war, as many of the properties had been large family houses and were suffering severe neglect and in a poor state of repair, it was not uncommon—I know this from experience, as my parents were looking for a business property in Belgravia and the west end after the war—for landlords to grant leases of about 30 years, on the understanding that the leaseholder would repair and restore the property. Although I do not know the exact addresses, as I was a little boy at the time, I suspect that the landlord was Grosvenor estates.
      Those were historic properties, even in those times, and they had to be restored to a condition in which they could survive as buildings and would not need to be knocked down. That meant dealing with dry rot, installing damp-proof courses, putting on new roofs and restoring the fine architectural features at a substantial cost. Consequently, the early years of the lease were charged at modest levels, with the later years being more of a rent. The intention was effectively for a rented period of up to about 30 years, after which the property would revert to Grosvenor estates.
      It would be wrong to consider leaseholders who engaged in such arrangements as necessarily entitled to enfranchisement. There were benefits on both sides, and both parties entered into the arrangements understanding exactly what they were doing.
      944
      Similar arrangements are still entered into with historic properties. I understand that the National Trust enters into similar arrangements today. It would be wrong if such leaseholders were entitled to be enfranchised in the way that is being discussed.
      There is a balance to be drawn. I believe that we are nearly there. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has ensured that we are close to remedying most abuses of the leasehold system. It has been a long battle—it was started by the predecessor of my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Mr. Fishburn), Sir Brandon Rhys Williams, who sadly died before it could be incorporated into legislation. The battle has been carried forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and my right hon. Friends the Members for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke) and for Chelsea (Sir N. Scott). Some of us have been battling hard for the rights of leaseholders.
      I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has gone nearly the whole way towards providing for leaseholders the remedies they need. However, I urge him to reconsider the 50-year period to find out whether it could be fine-tuned. I also urge him to consider, in time, the introduction of commonhold, which would put the icing on the cake for leaseholders and would enable us to move forward to a form of tenure in urban property that would set us right for the next 100 or 200 years in London.
      5.45 pm
      Ms Glenda Jackson: I shall speak briefly. Unlike the Secretary of State, who was so outraged at what he clearly saw as my audacity in intervening on him when I had not been present to hear the first words that emanated from his lips, I have heard before the arguments that I am hearing this afternoon. I had the privilege to serve on the Standing Committee of the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993, as well as that on this Bill.
      I found the contribution of the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Carrington) fascinating. He presented a personal story, and charitably told the House that he believed that the arrangement that he had described was equal on both sides. I do not accept his interpretation. I read it as informing my view, that the maintenance of the great estates in London was almost entirely dependent on the willingness of those leaseholders to take on the sort of lease to which he referred, and to furnish out of their own pockets the enormous restorations to which he referred in his example. Indeed, they have had the responsibility for maintaining those great estates ever since, by virtue of the financial contribution to maintenance and repair ordained for them by their freeholder.
      The introduction of the 50-year period does absolutely nothing to rectify the overwhelming injustice that so many leaseholders have lived under, and will continue to live under, if the House does not vote for the Opposition amendments. The argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford) and that furnished by the hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire (Mr. Ashby) have clarified the situation. The introduction of a different number of years will do absolutely nothing to advance the cause of leasehold enfranchisement. I do not think it an exaggeration to say that it will leave thousands of people in the same uneasy situation in which they find themselves today.

      945
      We have heard much talk of equity, land, landowners and freeholders. One of the elements that has been missing from the debate is that we are talking not simply about bricks and mortar, but about people's homes—often family homes in which there has been not only a financial requirement to maintain the fabric, at the behest of the owner of the freehold, but an emotional commitment.
      As those of us who are privileged to have families know, their entirely individual histories are enshrined—I hesitated to use the word "enshrined", as it is too extreme and possibly sentimental, and 1 would hate to be either—within the confines of the home. The growth and development of the family and the emotional commitment and sense of continuity, to which the Secretary of State referred, are intrinsic, not only in the people involved but in the physical environment in which they live, raise their children and see them grow and develop their own families.
      As I said in my intervention on the Secretary of State, it is a gross injustice that leaseholders are not allowed to pass property on to their families. I repeat: the Prime Minister has said that one of the central planks of Conservative party policy is that people can pass on what they own to their own—but they do not have a sense of what they have physically and economically maintained as genuinely their own.
      The amendment moved by the Secretary of State will do absolutely nothing to remove the sense of temporary engagement, no matter how long it may be perceived that people will live in the home. The introduction of 50 years underlines what I believe to be gross inequity—that, in certain situations, leaseholders have absolutely no right to regard their home as their home.
      I urge Government Members to vote for the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich. As more than one hon. Member has said this afternoon, the low rent amendment received all-party support in Committee, and it was agreed. It would be quite wrong for the House to ignore that debate.
      Many thousands of people, in London and around the country, are looking to the House today to relieve them of the anxiety and the burden of not knowing whether they can claim their home for their own. They are not trying to steal it—often, the properties would not be standing were it not for the financial and emotional commitment of the leaseholders—they simply wish to have the security that surely they have worked for and that they have committed themselves to. They want to know that their home is their home.
      This is the second time that this issue has been debated in a short time, not only on the Floor of the House but in Committee. The issue has been meticulously examined, and the arguments, in the main, have been serious. Hon. Members should not allow the Government's newly tabled—and supposedly newly considered—amendments to be part of the Bill, as they would betray many thousands of leaseholders who have genuinely looked to us to speak for them. As we have been given a second opportunity to right a wrong, we should do so tonight.
      Mr. Brooke: I spoke to the Bill in Committee, and I will not repeat what I said on that occasion—save to say that I recognised that, historically, there had been advantages in the leasehold principle, and that it had greatly benefited the aesthetic charms of central London and of other towns and cities that grew rapidly in the 18th century.
      946
      I acknowledged that, in the last decade of the 20th century, the principle of leasehold utility might have been diminished. I suggested that the opportunity of patient unravelling in the Bill should not be missed. I acknowledged the rights of freeholders and of landlords—I emphasise, particularly good freeholders and landlords—as well as the rights of leaseholders. The patient unravelling that I was envisaging was to take both sets of interests into account.
      I said that I would support the Government in Committee—but I thought that the amendments owed more to impatient unravelling than to patient unravelling. I said that I hoped that the issues would be reconsidered by Her Majesty's Government in the interim between Committee and Report. The hon. Members for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford) and for Christchurch (Mrs. Maddock) interpreted that as a part of all-party support—and I do not resile from the language that they have used. I need to be fair to the Government—they have reconsidered matters, and I am prepared to give them the benefit of the doubt.
      The hon. Member for Greenwich concentrated his attack on the 50-year provision. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said that there was nothing sacred about 50 years, which is his current best estimate. That is flexibility and good will enough for me. It would be churlish of me to throw back the Government's concessions when they have reconsidered the issue quite significantly between Committee and Report, as I asked them to do.
      Mr. Clive Betts: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson), I had the privilege of serving on the Committee considering the Bill, and of listening to the considerable and intricate arguments on the amendments that were eventually carried. As she said, there was all-party support in Committee. The Labour party supported the amendments that the Government are now seeking further to amend by their new clause.
      There was support from the hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire (Mr. Ashby)—to whom my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford) has already referred—and he was very brave to make a stand, as a matter of principle, in defence of the rights of many leaseholders who have been substantially disfranchised for many years. He made a stand to ensure that the Bill contained clauses that would give leaseholders the rights they had sought and battled for over the years.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich has referred to the work of Joan South and others struggling to ensure the enfranchisement of leaseholders and to give them their proper rights. Members of the Labour party, Liberal Democrats and Ulster Unionists supported the proposals we brought forward—in fact, many arguments were mounted in favour of our proposals.
      The thing that influenced and convinced me most of all—it has been raised again today in our discussions about the Government's new proposals—was the fact that this matter has been before the House on so many occasions. My hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate said that, only three years ago, she served on the Committee that looked at exactly the same issue. On that occasion, the Labour party warned the Government that what they were doing was not

      947
      satisfactory, that it would not give real and proper rights to leaseholders, and that it would not result in leaseholders being able to purchase the freehold of their property.
      In 1993, the Government were warned—as they have been on previous occasions—that they were passing words in legislation that would not give the people in question the rights they desired, words that would not change the fundamental relationship between leaseholders and their freeholders, and words that would not enable leaseholders to buy the freeholds that they desired. When we came to discuss these issues in Committee, it was all too apparent that the Government had not learnt the lessons.
      I am most disappointed that, when we had had that debate in Committee, and had had amendments carried which would for the first time give real rights, exercisable rights, to the people fighting this campaign over many years, such as Joan South, the Government were not able to accept them but have come forward with another form of words.
      I was not convinced by what the Secretary of State said. When my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich challenged him to show how anyone had benefited from the exercise of the previous legislation, only one case was presented. As the hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire said, it is a bit like one swallow making a summer, and does not prove the Government's case.
      I listened with interest to what the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Carrington) said about the 50-year rule. He said that he saw no argument why the 50-year rule was necessarily applicable. A 45-year rule, a 40-year rule or a 35-year rule might equally be introduced. It is possible to argue in favour of any number of years, but those arguments would be based on hunches—on Ministers feeling that it might be the right thing to do.
      The Secretary of State has made no convincing case that any research has been done, or empirical evidence collected, to show that 50 years is the right period. I still have not heard from the Secretary of State, or any Conservative Member, any evidence to show that 50 years is the right period. We are asked to vote for a Government new clause that provides for a low-rent test based on 50 years; on what evidence are we asked to do so?
      6 pm
      The House has been asked to overturn the Committee's decision—to overturn an amendment that would have tackled a low-rent test that has effectively prevented leaseholders from exercising their right to enfranchisement for several successive periods of years, following each successive process of legislation. Leaseholders have not been allowed to exercise their rights; they have been frustrated by the wording of successive pieces of legislation. All we have from the Government is yet another form of words, surrounding a 50-year rule, and no Conservative Member has given us any evidence that that 50-year rule is right, fair and reasonable.
      Perhaps the Secretary of State will tell us why 50 years is the right period. Why does not he accept that 45 years, or 40 years, is right?
      Perhaps the Secretary of State will also write to Mrs. Loder Dyer, and explain how the new clause will enfranchise her, and justify that. I know that it is not always
      948
      possible to devise legislation on the basis of one case, but in this case it surely illustrates a matter of principle—the matter of principle, the just cause, for which that lady has fought for many years. That just cause was not supported by previous legislation, because the wording was lax and offered a freeholder enough loopholes and possibilities to take her, as she explained, through one court process after another—processes that she could not afford.
      The lady finally believed that she would receive her entitlements as a result of the amendments that we passed in Committee, but now, because she has a lease of slightly more than 45 years, the 50-year rule will once again exclude her. What will the Secretary of State say to her? He must convince people like her on grounds of fairness and reasonableness if new clause 21 is to be worthy of being passed by the House tonight.
      Mr. Gummer: We have had a useful discussion on this subject.
      My hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire (Mr. Ashby) suggested that there might be a different way of introducing the equity that he was kind enough to suggest was present in the amendment. I have considered the possibility of tying this in the way that he suggests, but I am happy to reconsider it to discover whether there is a way of using his suggestion. I should not like to over-emphasise the possibilities, because I genuinely have considered the issue carefully, but I am prepared at least to talk to him about these things to discover whether I can do anything.
      I think I can honourably say that, because I put the measure into the Bill. I did so because I was Minister responsible for London and because, for many years, I had the considerable experience of listening to, among others, my old friend—now sadly dead—Sir Brandon Rhys Williams, who led this battle. He has been supported latterly by his successor, my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Mr. Fishburn), and by my right hon. Friends the Members for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke) and for Chelsea (Sir N. Scott) and by my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. Carrington). That important group of people has pressed that argument upon me, and that is why the measure is in the Bill in the first place.
      I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire should feel that I have been as flexible as possible, and I am surprised that the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mrs. Maddock) attacks me for being flexible. It is very odd. I am afraid that her party is like that; it always wants it every way. She admitted that two sets of legislation have not got it quite right, but evidently believes that I can now get it absolutely right with a snap of my fingers. The hon. Lady might have phrased that more graciously.
      The hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford) was a little unhappy in his attitude to freeholders, as I have tried to achieve a balance, and will continue to do so. My hon. Friend the Member for Fulham made that point carefully, and I was surprised that the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson) did not recognise what he recognised from experience—that there is something to be said on both sides.
      The work that my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham and his colleagues have done was much more graceful, much more concerned with equity, and much more equal than the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate was

      949
      in the rather sad way in which she expressed her view. I found her remark about temporary engagement in housing odd from someone who has opposed, at every step, the ability of council tenants to buy their own homes. She appears to have a very odd inconsistency of opinion.
      Ms Glenda Jackson: Will the Secretary of State give way?
      Mr. Gummer: No, I will not give way on this occasion. I have given way to the hon. Lady several times.
      I was impressed by the comments by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts), but he repeated what others had said.
      I believe that we have achieved a balance. I promise to consider exactly where the line should be drawn, and the issues raised by my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire. I hope that the House will feel that I have been as flexible as possible. I again pay tribute to those of my hon. Friends who pushed this in the first place.
      Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 289, Noes 287.

      Division No. 114]

      [18.05 pm

      AYES

      Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

      Channon, Rt Hon Paul

      Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

      Chapman, Sir Sydney

      Alexander, Richard

      Churchill, Mr

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

      Clappison, James

      Amess, David

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

      Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

      Arbuthnot, James

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Coe, Sebastian

      Ashby, David

      Congdon, David

      Atkins, Rt Hon Robert

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

      Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)

      Cormack, Sir Patrick

      Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

      Couchman, James

      Baldry, Tony

      Cran, James

      Banks, Matthew (Southport)

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

      Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

      Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

      Bates, Michael

      Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

      Batiste, Spencer

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Bendall, Vivian

      Day, Stephen

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Deva, Nirj Joseph

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Devlin, Tim

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Dicks, Terry

      Booth, Hartley

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Boswell, Tim

      Dover, Den

      Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

      Duncan, Alan

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

      Duncan Smith, Iain

      Bowden, Sir Andrew

      Dunn, Bob

      Bowis, John

      Durant, Sir Anthony

      Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

      Elletson, Harold

      Brandreth, Gyles

      Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Brazier, Julian

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Bright, Sir Graham

      Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

      Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

      Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Evennett, David

      Budgen, Nicholas

      Faber, David

      Burt, Alistair

      Fabricant, Michael

      Butcher, John

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      Butler, Peter

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Carlisle, John (Luton North)

      Fishburn, Dudley

      Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Forman, Nigel

      Carrington, Matthew

      Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)

      Carttiss, Michael

      Forth, Eric

      950

      Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

      Luff, Peter

      Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Fox, Rt Hon Sir Marcus (Shipley)

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

      MacKay, Andrew

      French, Douglas

      Maclean, Rt Hon David

      Fry, Sir Peter

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Gale, Roger

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

      Gallie, Phil

      Madel, Sir David

      Gardiner, Sir George

      Maitland, Lady Olga

      Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

      Major, Rt Hon John

      Garnier, Edward

      Malone, Gerald

      Gill, Christopher

      Mans, Keith

      Gillan, Cheryl

      Marland, Paul

      Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Gorst, Sir John

      Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

      Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)

      Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Mellor, Rt Hon David

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Merchant, Piers

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

      Mills, Iain

      Grylls, Sir Michael

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

      Moate, Sir Roger

      Hague, Rt Hon William

      Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Moss, Malcolm

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Needham, Rt Hon Richard

      Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy

      Neubert, Sir Michael

      Hannam, Sir John

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Hargreaves, Andrew

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Haselhurst, Sir Alan

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Hawkins, Nick

      Norris, Steve

      Hawksley, Warren

      Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

      Heald, Oliver

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

      Ottaway, Richard

      Hendry, Charles

      Page, Richard

      Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

      Paice, James

      Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

      Patnick, Sir Irvine

      Hill, James (Southampton Test)

      Patten, Rt Hon John

      Horam, John

      Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Pawsey, James

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

      Pickles, Eric

      Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

      Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

      Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Hunter, Andrew

      Rathbone, Tim

      Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Jack, Michael

      Renton, Rt Hon Tim

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Richards, Rod

      Jessel, Toby

      Riddick, Graham

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Robathan, Andrew

      Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

      Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

      Key, Robert

      Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

      Knapman, Roger

      Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

      Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

      Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

      Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)

      Sackville, Tom

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

      Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

      Knox, Sir David

      Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

      Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

      Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

      Lang, Rt Hon Ian

      Shersby, Sir Michael

      Lawrence, Sir Ivan

      Sims, Roger

      Legg, Barry

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Leigh, Edward

      Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

      Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Lester, Sir James (Broxtowe)

      Soames, Nicholas

      Lidington, David

      Speed, Sir Keith

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Spencer, Sir Derek

      Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

      Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

      Lord, Michael

      Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)

      951

      Spink, Dr Robert

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Spring, Richard

      Viggers, Peter

      Sproat, Iain

      Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

      Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

      Walden, George

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

      Steen, Anthony

      Waller, Gary

      Stephen, Michael

      Ward, John

      Stern, Michael

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Stewart, Allan

      Waterson, Nigel

      Streeter, Gary

      Watts, John

      Sweeney, Walter

      Wells, Bowen

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Whitney, Ray

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Whittingdale, John

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

      Wiggin, Sir Jerry

      Thomason, Roy

      Wilkinson, John

      Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

      Willetts, David

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

      Thornton, Sir Malcolm

      Wolfson, Mark

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Wood, Timothy

      Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

      Yeo, Tim

      Tracey, Richard

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Tredinnick, David

      Trend, Michael

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Trotter, Neville

      Mr. Simon Burns and

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Mr. Derek Conway.

      NOES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Clelland, David

      Adams, Mrs Irene

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Coffey, Ann

      Allen, Graham

      Cohen, Harry

      Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

      Connarty, Michael

      Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Armstrong, Hilary

      Corbett, Robin

      Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Ashton, Joe

      Corston, Jean

      Austin-Walker, John

      Cousins, Jim

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      Cox, Tom

      Barron, Kevin

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Battle, John

      Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

      Bayley, Hugh

      Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

      Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

      Dafis, Cynog

      Beggs, Roy

      Darling, Alistair

      Beith, Rt Hon A J

      Davidson, Ian

      Bell, Stuart

      Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

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

      Bennett, Andrew F

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Benton, Joe

      Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

      Bermingham, Gerald

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

      Berry, Roger

      Denham, John

      Betts, Clive

      Dewar, Donald

      Blair, Rt Hon Tony

      Dixon, Don

      Blunkett, David

      Dobson, Frank

      Boateng, Paul

      Donohoe, Brian H

      Boyes, Roland

      Dowd, Jim

      Bradley, Keith

      Dunnachie, Jimmy

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

      Eagle, Ms Angela

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

      Eastham, Ken

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Etherington, Bill

      Burden, Richard

      Evans, John (St Helens N)

      Byers, Stephen

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret

      Caborn, Richard

      Fatchett, Derek

      Callaghan, Jim

      Faulds, Andrew

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Fisher, Mark

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)

      Cann, Jamie

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Chidgey, David

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Chisholm, Malcolm

      Foulkes, George

      Church, Judith

      Fraser, John

      Clapham, Michael

      Fyfe, Maria

      Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

      Galbraith, Sam

      Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

      Galloway, George

      952

      Gapes, Mike

      McGrady, Eddie

      Garrett, John

      McKelvey, William

      George, Bruce

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Gerrard, Neil

      McLeish, Henry

      Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

      Maclennan, Robert

      Godsiff, Roger

      McMaster, Gordon

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      MacShane, Denis

      Gordon, Mildred

      Maddock, Diana

      Graham, Thomas

      Maginnis, Ken

      Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

      Mahon, Alice

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinbuigh S)

      Mandelson, Peter

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Grocott, Bruce

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

      Gunnell, John

      Martin, Michael J (Springburn)

      Hain, Peter

      Martlew, Eric

      Hall, Mike

      Maxton, John

      Hanson, David

      Meacher, Michael

      Hardy, Peter

      Meale, Alan

      Harman, Ms Harriet

      Michael, Alun

      Harvey, Nick

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

      Henderson, Doug

      Milburn, Alan

      Hendron, Dr Joe

      Miller, Andrew

      Heppell, John

      Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

      Hill, Keith (Streatham)

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Hinchliffe, David

      Morgan, Rhodri

      Hodge, Margaret

      Morley, Elliot

      Hoey, Kate

      Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

      Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

      Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

      Hoon, Geoffrey

      Mowlam, Marjorie

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

      Mudie, George

      Howarth, George (Knowsley North)

      Mullin, Chris

      Howells, Dr Kim (Pontypridd)

      Murphy, Paul

      Hoyle, Doug

      Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

      Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

      O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

      O'Brien, William (Normanton)

      Hume, John

      O'Hara, Edward

      Hutton, John

      Olner, Bill

      Illsley, Eric

      Paisley, The Reverend Ian

      Ingram, Adam

      Parry, Robert

      Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

      Pearson, Ian

      Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

      Pendry, Tom

      Jamieson, David

      Pickthall, Colin

      Janner, Greville

      Pike, Peter L

      Jenkins, Brian (SE Staff)

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Johnston, Sir Russell

      Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)

      Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

      Prescott, Rt Hon John

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

      Purchase, Ken

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Radice, Giles

      Jowell, Tessa

      Randall, Stuart

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Raynsford, Nick

      Keen, Alan

      Reid, Dr John

      Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)

      Rendel, David

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

      Robertson, George (Hamilton)

      Khabra, Piara S

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Rogers, Allan

      Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

      Rooker, Jeff

      Lewis, Terry

      Rooney, Terry

      Liddell, Mrs Helen

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Litherland, Robert

      Ross, William (E Londonderry)

      Livingstone, Ken

      Rowlands, Ted

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

      Ruddock, Joan

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Salmond, Alex

      Loyden, Eddie

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Lynne, Ms Liz

      Sheerman, Barry

      McAllion, John

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      McCartney, Ian

      Short, Clare

      McCartney, Robert

      Simpson, Alan

      McCrea, The Reverend William

      Skinner, Dennis

      McFall, John

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      953

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

      Tyler, Paul

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Vaz, Keith

      Smyth, The Reverend Martin

      Walker, A Cecil (Belfast N)

      Snape, Peter

      Wallace, James

      Soley, Clive

      Walley, Joan

      Spellar, John

      Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

      Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

      Wareing, Robert N

      Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

      Watson, Mike

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Welsh, Andrew

      Strang, Dr. Gavin

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Straw Jack

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

      Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strgfd)

      Wilson Brian

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Wise, Audrey

      Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

      Worthington, Tony

      Thumham, Peter

      Wray, Jimmy

      Timms, Stephen

      Wright, Dr Tony

      Tipping, Paddy

      Young, David (Bolton SE)

      Touhig, Don

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Trickett, Jon

      Mr. Eric Clarke and

      Turner, Dennis

      Mr. Greg Pope

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
      Mr. Henry McLeish: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Tonight, the Government have been defeated in Committee in yet another attempt to increase prescription charges. Surely that decision must be respected. It must be wrong for Ministers to ride roughshod over the clear decision of a statutory Committee of the House. Is it in order for me to ask you to protect the House and the public against the actions of Ministers?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): My job in the Chair is to ensure the safe passage of the Housing Bill, as amended. For the moment, that is my sole concern.
      Mr. Hugh Bayley: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is it a new point of order?
      Mr. Bayley: It is on the same matter, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have ruled on that, so we shall move on.

    New clause 15

      APPOINTMENT OF MANAGER: TRANSFER OF JURISDICTION TO LEASEHOLD VALUATION TRIBUNAL
      .—(1) Part II of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 (appointment of managers by the court) is amended as follows for the purpose of transferring to a leasehold valuation tribunal the jurisdiction of the court under that Part.

      (2) In the following contexts for "the court", in the first (or only) place where it occurs, substitute "a leasehold valuation tribunal": section 21(1), section 22(2) (6), section 22(3), section 23(1), section 24(1), (2), (9) and (10): and in every other context, except section 21(6), for "the court" substitute "the tribunal".

      (3) In section 21(6) (exclusion of application under inherent jurisdiction of court) for "any jurisdiction existing apart from this Act" substitute "any jurisdiction".

      954

      (4) In section 23(2) for "Rules of court" substitute "Procedure regulations".

      (5) After section 24 insert—

      APPOINTMENT OF MANAGER: TRANSFER OF JURISDICTION TO LEASEHOLD VALUATION TRIBUNAL

        Jurisdiction of leasehold valuation tribunal
        24A.—(1) The jurisdiction conferred by this Part on a leasehold valuation tribunal is exercisable by a rent assessment committee constituted in accordance with Schedule 10 to the Rent Act 1977 which when so constituted for the purposes of exercising any such jurisdiction shall be known as a leasehold valuation tribunal.
        (2) The power to make regulations under section 74(1) (b) of the Rent Act 1977 (procedure of rent assessment committees) extends to prescribing the procedure to be followed in connection with any proceedings before a leasehold valuation tribunal under this Part.
        Such regulations are referred to in this Part as "procedure regulations".
        (3) Any order made by a leasehold valuation tribunal under this Part may, with the leave of the court, be enforced in the same way as an order of the county court.
        (4) No costs incurred by a party in connection with proceedings under this Part before a leasehold valuation tribunal shall be recoverable by order of any court.
        (5) Paragraphs 2, 3 and 7 of Schedule 22 to the Housing Act 1980 (supplementary provisions relating to leasehold valuation tribunals: appeals and provision of information) apply to a leasehold valuation tribunal constituted for the purposes of this section.
        (6) On an appeal to the Lands Tribunal from a decision of a leasehold valuation tribunal under this Part—

        (a) the Lands Tribunal may exercise any power available to the leasehold valuation tribunal in relation to the original matter, and

        (b) an order of the Lands Tribunal may be enforced in the same way as an order of the leasehold valuation tribunal.

        Leasehold valuation tribunal: applications and fees
        24B.—(1) The Secretary of State may make provision by order as to the form of, or the particulars to be contained in, an application made to a leasehold valuation tribunal under this Part.
        (2) The Secretary of State may make provision by order—

        (a) requiring the payment of fees in respect of any such application, or in respect of any proceedings before, a leasehold valuation tribunal under this Part; and

        (b) empowering a leasehold valuation tribunal to require a party to proceedings before it to reimburse any other party the amount of any fees paid by him.

        (3) The fees payable shall be such as may be specified in or determined in accordance with the order; and the order shall be framed with a view to securing that taking one year with another the amount of the fees charged is sufficient to meet the reasonable cost of providing the service to which they relate.
        (4) An order under this section may make different provision for different cases or classes of case or for different areas.
        (5) An order may, in particular, provide for the reduction or waiver of fees by reference to the financial resources of the party by whom they are to be paid or met.
        Any such order may apply, subject to such modifications as may be specified in the order, any other statutory means-testing regime as it has effect from time to time.
        (6) An order under this section shall be made by statutory instrument which, unless the order contains only such provision as is mentioned in subsection (1), shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.".
        (6) In section 52 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 (jurisdiction of county courts), in subsection (2) (a) for "Parts I to IV" substitute "Parts I, III and IV".—[Mr. Gummer]
        Brought up, and read the First time.
        Mr. Gummer: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
        Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government new clause 16—Period after which acquisition order may be made.
        Government new clause 17—Text of Part II of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987, as amended.
        Government amendments Nos. 92, 93, 140 and 141.
        Government new schedule 1—Text of Part II of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987, as amended.
        Mr. Gummer: Earlier, we discussed matters of equity. I suggested that the Bill included these provisions because, as Minister responsible for London, I recognised the continuing problems involved in leasehold enfranchisement. The management of a block of leasehold flats is a particularly important issue. It was put to us that leaseholders should have a right to manage, irrespective of the actions of the freeholder—in other words, that we should ignore whether a freeholder was good, bad or indifferent, and say that in all circumstances leaseholders should be able to manage the property.
        We propose to remove clause 81 from the Bill. It gives leaseholders in a block of flats the right to take over responsibility for its management, irrespective of whether the freeholder is doing a good job. We consider that removal to be the correct procedure, because the clause suggests that a right that the freeholder clearly has should be removed without compensation, even if he is an excellent manager. I find that difficult to accept in terms of equity. I say that as someone who has been extremely angry about the activities of so-called freeholders—people who have bought up freeholds for speculative purposes.
        The hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson) made some pretty unpleasant comments about freeholders generally. To refer to all freeholders in that way removes the force of what I would say about those who do behave badly: they behave in a way that is wholly intolerable and damages the lives of their leaseholders. I have my proposals for change precisely because I find the action of those people unacceptable and current legislation does not provide proper protection.
        Ms Glenda Jackson: I am not aware of ever having condemned all freeholders. Perhaps the Secretary of State could point out where I have made such allegations. I was certainly somewhat vehement in Committee in urging hon. Members not to believe that a freeholder who has a seemingly sound name is automatically a good freeholder or property manager.
        Mr. Gummer: I am sorry if the hon. Lady feels that I have misjudged her. Certainly the tenor of her remarks in the previous debate did not allow the House to hear any exceptions when she suggested that all leaseholders had contributed more to the development, protection and
        956
        maintenance of their properties than freeholders. I am afraid that that is not true. Many freeholders play a perfectly proper part in those arrangements.
        I want to ensure that both sides are properly protected and that their rights are properly upheld. I do so having introduced measures to protect leaseholders who were not properly protected because I believed that they needed additional protection.
        The difficulty with removing the rights of freeholders without compensation is that we would be removing something of value. Whether we like it or not, it is a fact that the price the landlord pays for property reflects the income available from management—not from exploitation, but from management—and genuine commercial business that would stand scrutiny about its fairness. The House must therefore think seriously before it removes the rights of people even when they have behaved wholly genuinely and absolutely properly.
        Mr. Raynsford: Will the Secretary of State give way?
        6.30 pm
        Mr. Gummer: In a second.
        The House has to take that into account because the House is here—in part, at least, and perhaps some would say overall—to protect the rights of all. It is also true that the policy of an unqualified right to take over management would give a landlord the possibility of mounting a challenge to the legislation before the European Court of Human Rights, which allows deprivation of rights only if that can be justified in the public interest and when a fair compensation is paid.
        The problem that arises is whether it is reasonable to remove the rights of a good freeholder—somebody who is doing the job properly—or whether we should look for a way to remove those rights when the job is not properly done.
        Mr. Ashby: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
        Mr. Gummer: I promised to give way to the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford), so I will give way to him first and then I will be happy to give way to my hon. Friend.
        Mr. Raynsford: The Secretary of State has spoken at great length about the potential damage that would be done by removing freeholders' rights altogether. Will he recognise that the arrangement by which the right to manage would be exercised—we successfully included this in Committee and the measure now appears in the Bill—would involve the creation of a management company on which the freeholder would be guaranteed representation? That is a specific safeguard for the freeholders' interests.
        Mr. Gummer: The best opinion I have had is that what is proposed would certainly give the opportunity to mount a challenge. As it stands, the Bill does not cover the rights that people have, and I wish to achieve equity. Therefore, if the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I am suggesting an alternative route that will meet the need.
        Mr. Ashby: I know that my right hon. Friend will say that he has had the best possible advice, but I wonder

        957
        whether that advice was the best possible, for the following reason: the freeholders do not have the right to income from the management of the lease of the freehold. Up and down the country, the Lands Tribunal has upheld the fact that the landlord has no rights to income from the management of the company. The advice must be wrong. I can refer my right hon. Friend to many cases and I have copies of detailed judgments in which a marriage value has been ascertained from the freehold. In every single case, the Lands Tribunal has said that the manager—that is, the freeholder, owner and landlord—has no property or financial rights that can be included in the marriage value. Will my right hon. Friend please reconsider the advice that he has been given?
        Mr. Gummer: I do not wish to use my lawyers' arguments against my hon. Friend, but the advice of the best lawyers is that there are other aspects that could have intrinsic value and that would open up the possibility of challenge. I am not basing my argument on that; I am merely saying that very good authority believes that.
        Mr. Ashby: I do not agree.
        Mr. Gummer: I spend a lot of my time disagreeing with legal advice and I fight my argument through. I have argued this point and I have been convinced by that legal advice. I would like my hon. Friend to listen to the fundamental principle. It is very difficult to say to people who have carried out their duties wholly properly and without any fault whatever that, although they entered a lease on the basis that they were going to manage, other people have a right to take the lease away, irrespective of how they have behaved. I do not think that many people would view that as equitable.
        Mr. Ashby: My right hon. Friend is wrong.
        Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend can say that, but I do not think that I am wrong to say—even if his legal view is different from mine—that it would not be thought right in common fairness to take away people's rights when they have done nothing wrong and when, sometimes, they have done more than anyone might have expected. It is not possible for it to be fair in equity to do that. I looked for a way to overcome that problem.
        Frankly, I was elected to the House to try to protect the interests of all, not of any one section. I also recognise that in this case there is a considerable difficulty with people getting the right to manage under the present legislation. The hon. Member for Greenwich and I had a joke between us about how many might have managed it or not. He is right: far too few do. I want to make it as easy as possible.
        Mr. Raynsford: May I advise the Secretary of State not to be too harsh on the hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire (Mr. Ashby)? The Secretary of State will be aware that, without his hon. Friend's vote, the Government would not have had a majority in the Division.
        If the Secretary of State feels that it is right to give the right to manage to tenants of local authorities, why is it wrong to give the same right to leaseholders?
        Mr. Gummer: First, I was trying to be as helpful as possible to my hon. Friend the Member for North-West
        958
        Leicestershire (Mr. Ashby). The Lands Tribunal has ruled that commission is part of landlords' income. Therefore, there is no doubt that the provision would be justiciable in the European Court of Human Rights.
        Mr. Ashby: I have the judgments here.
        Mr. Gummer: I am trying hard to be as even-handed as possible, and the advice I have is that that is what the Lands Tribunal has ruled. Therefore, we can say that there is at least a doubt. I do not want a situation in which there is a doubt, either for those who wish to manage or for anyone else. I also want to protect the rights of landlords and tenants and leaseholders. Therefore, I am proposing a solution that will get around the problems.
        First, I want it to be absolutely clear that if leaseholders have any reasonable wish to manage because the freeholder has not behaved properly, they should be able to do so rapidly, simply and at very low cost. If I can meet that aim, I will be able to be equitable on both sides. I propose to face up to the thoroughly unscrupulous actions of a minority of landlords and that is why I put a substantial package of measures in the Bill in the first place. That package is not in the Bill because of Opposition pressure: it is there because the Government put it there. The pressure came not from the lion. Member for Greenwich but from my right hon. Friends the Members for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke), for Chelsea (Sir N. Scott) and for Hove (Sir T. Sainsbury) and from my hon. Friends the Members for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor), for Kensington (Mr. Fishburn) and for Fulham (Mr. Carrington). It came from Conservative Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire, who has pressed those issues, as has my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley). As Minister responsible for London, I could not have failed to see the problems, and that is why I brought forward a substantial package of measures.
        The public expect the House to act with equity, and the first basic problem is that, whenever anybody tried to enforce a management arrangement, the unscrupulous landlord said, "If you lose in court, I will be in a position to get you out of your flat." That rarely happened, and I say that because I am not used to using the word "never". Nevertheless, the threat was often used and many people failed to take their landlord to court. I sought to have the decision made by a body that does not have the powers to remove somebody's leasehold right, so that no one need be frightened. Even though the worry that I have mentioned is largely, if not wholly, unreal, the tribunal seems to be the proper way of proceeding.
        In addition, people would not take their landlords to court because it was too expensive. The freeholder would have the best legal advisers—no doubt some of them would be between us if I were to discuss the matter with my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire. Such actions could be expensive and dragged out, and people would give in.
        Mr. Ashby: I have not received any legal advice, but I have studied Lands Tribunal judgment after judgment. I cannot possibly see why a landlord has any right to profit from the management of a premises. That view has been fully upheld by all Lands Tribunal decisions that I have seen, including recent decisions.
        Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend's advice is challenged by people who have done precisely the same as my hon. Friend, but to an even greater extent. I am trying to be as helpful as I can to my hon. Friend. There is, at least, disagreement, so let us leave it at that.
        One must devise a way of dealing with the situation that is not expensive and is readily available, which is why I have suggested that the leasehold valuation tribunal would be the suitable organisation. It will be able to make decisions immediately and reasonably cheaply. It will not be necessary for people to have legal representation, because applicable arguments will be much more readily understood by tribunal members, who will be able to use their professional expertise. My hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire would acknowledge that the problem with the courts is that a judge is not able to use his expertise, even if he has any. Tribunal members will be able to use their expertise and to seek from the freeholder details of how he failed to carry through his duty.
        It seems to me that one should go further and reverse—I say this as a non-lawyer—the burden of proof. The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors will be publishing a guide to the way in which freeholders should manage property. It will be open to any leaseholder to say, "Here is the guide. My freeholder has failed to adhere to it"—then the tribunal will be able to introduce the manager to run the block of flats. That seems to be the proper way forward. It will ensure easy access to justice for people who need it, the cost will be reasonable and a landlord will have to prove that he has done the job properly—or that he has not for reasons readily acceptable as force majeure.
        Labour's proposition would be difficult to defend because it would mean saying to a class of subject that something that they have will be taken away without compensation. I am trying to put in place a means of offering to anybody who wants to take over a property's management a clear, easy and accessible means of doing so.
        The significant changes in the Bill are backed by a series of helpful mechanisms. We have added another ground for the tribunal to take into account in considering whether a manager should be appointed—that the freeholder has failed to comply with the relevant codes of practice to which I referred. The tribunal can refer to the code drawn up by the Association of Retirement Housing Managers, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East referred.
        6.45 pm
        Mr. Raynsford: The Secretary of State referred to the association's code of guidance and other codes. Which other codes are in existence?
        Mr. Gummer: I said that the RICS was finalising a code, which I can approve under the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 and make statutory. I hope to approve the code and to make sure that it has legal force shortly.
        We are proposing to shorten from three to two years the period for which a manager appointed by the LVT must be in place before the tenants have sufficient grounds to apply to acquire the freehold interest. That offers an attractive route for tenants to purchase the freehold at open market value.
        We have produced a means of easy, reasonable and accessible redress that protects people from the harassment that we have seen from bad freeholders yet
        960
        preserves the equity that otherwise would lead us into grave difficulties—even if I do not go too far in meeting the concerns of my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire, which I do not underestimate, who referred to LVT decisions about the price to be paid for the freeholder's interest on enfranchisement. The Lands Tribunal has ruled that no separate amount needs to be allowed in respect of insurance commissions, because the price fixed by reference to evidence of market transactions already includes that value. The Lands Tribunal, which is superior to the LVT, has confirmed that insurance commissions are part of the value of the freehold. The leading case is that of Calthorpe estate. On that ground, any estate could appeal to the European Court of Human Rights—not the European Court of Justice, as my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East knows. I do not want to be in that position. I want to give people certainty with equity, and the Government's proposals will achieve precisely that.
        Mr. Ashby: The new clause and the schedule attempt to address the problem, and I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for introducing it. I shall not be so churlish as to say that I totally disagree with it, as that is not the point, but we are almost dealing with this as though we are in Committee.
        I am fundamentally opposed to leaseholds and always have been. They are a form of confidence trick, established 200 years ago, when the only form of investment available was land. All the great landowners owned land. There was no equity market. No other form of investment was available. Later, landowners transferred ownership of the land, but for only 99 or 125 years, and in three generations would get it back. The high value of the land is repeated time and again. Those are the people whom we are talking about. I believe that, in a sense, we have got it fundamentally wrong.
        The interests of the landlord are traded time and again. I am not talking about the people to whom reference has been made in the Chamber in glowing terms, because there are good and bad landlords. By and large, as soon as the landlord has sold off the leasehold, he trades the freehold. I am thinking of a case, which I mentioned in Committee, in which there was a long lease of 120 years, with 117 left to run. The leasehold was traded at auction and bought for £5, 000. The price paid was about six or seven times the annual ground rent.
        Why does someone in that position buy the leasehold? Because he hopes that he can do something with it, that in time he will be able to trade it up and that it will be a good investment and make money for him. One of the ways in which he does that is by looking at the services. He is able to do two things: first, he is able to charge an administration fee. "I am the landlord." he says, "I am administering this property, so I shall charge an administration fee, which I assess to be £200 per year per property." That is nice and easy. That is lovely to have. That includes, of course, the cost of various other things. Secondly, he says, "Well, I must also look after the property." That is marvellous. "So I shall have to appoint a surveyor. I just happen to have one in my company." That means more profit for him. because it is his own surveyor. "Oh, " he says, "the property needs to be repaired, doesn't it? I shall use my own company, which charges costs plus 25 per cent. for the work." At the end of the day his return is about 35 or 40 per cent.

        961
        That is what I object to very strongly indeed. It is the tenant who suffers and will continue to suffer these high costs. The landlord's interest is in the freehold. The tenant's interest is in the management. He is concerned to see that his property is properly serviced and managed, and there is absolutely no reason why he should not. I cannot understand my right hon. Friend when he says that landlords are entitled to make these great profits, or make profits.
        Mr. Gummer: I shall try to help my hon. Friend. I have not said that they are entitled to make either profits or great profits. I said that in law it is established that they have certain rights, and if one took them away without compensation, one would be subject to an appeal to the European Court of Human Rights. That is all that I am saying. I am not saying whether I think that it is a good thing or a bad thing. I just think that we must take that into account when having these discussions. I am trying to find a way that avoids that issue while still protecting the leaseholder in the way that I know my hon. Friend wants, and that I also want. That is why I put it in the Bill. If I did not care about it, I would not have put it in the Bill in the first place.
        Mr. Ashby: Why cannot we all be adventurous in this? I shall not criticise the Secretary of State. The hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford) will not either. Let us say that landlords are not allowed to earn these profits and then see what happens in the European Court. We have a decision of the Lands Tribunal. It has not been taken to the Court of Appeal or to the House of Lords. The Lands Tribunal is just a court of first instance that has made a decision. It is not the law. It is merely a precedent. Parliament is sovereign and has the right to legislate and to make laws. I give the undertaking to my right hon. Friend that I would not dream of criticising the Government, and I know that the hon. Member for Greenwich would give the specific undertaking on behalf of his party that he would not dream of criticising the Government but would uphold them as trying their best to do the right thing and to be fair and just to everybody. Why not legislate and be damned? That is what we should do.
        I am absolutely convinced morally, despite the decision of the Lands Tribunal, that landlords, by virtue of the fact that they hold the freehold, have no rights in that agreement other than to collect the ground rent and to nominate the insurance company that is to insure the building. Most leases are the same. Mine does not say that my landlord is entitled to commission, merely that he can nominate the insurance company, and when I next pay him his insurance, I shall deduct 15 per cent., because I know that that is his commission. He can take me to court for his 15 per cent. I shall put before him my lease and say, "It doesn't say anything, mate, about you being entitled to take commission."
        We voted this in. We gave the right to manage. I cannot think of anything more fitting than that tenants should be allowed to choose their own management, to get away from the exorbitant profits of landlords who have bought these properties at auction. I am not talking about the good landlords, because good landlords do not "manage". The Grosvenor estate does not manage; it creates a head lease. Other people carry out the servicing. The big estates that we all want to praise do not manage.
        962
        I received a letter today from Mr. and Mrs. Mathew of Bristol. I grabbed it just before I came into the House. It says:
        "Dear Mr. Ashby,
        As members of a Residents' Association we are very much concerned with trying to manage our own flats, and were therefore pleased to read in 'The Times' April 3rd that you are supporting a 'right to manage' clause in the Housing Bill.
        We are victims of extortionate management fees"—
        this is important—
        "which means that no-one in our block is able to sell their flat.
        Knowing very little about procedures in the house, we would be most grateful if you could let us know how this bill has progressed and if and when it is likely to become law."
        What am I to say in reply? I am to say, "Yes, we are giving you some sort of right. Let me tell you what you must do. It is very complicated. You must serve a notice, which must specify a number of things. Where those things are capable of being remedied by the landlord, he must
        'take such steps for the purpose of remedying them as are so specified'
        before an application can be made." A landlord can be bad, and then put things right; he can be bad for another year, and then put that right; and he can do the same for another year. Tenants can be given lousy service year after year, but they cannot get very far in doing anything about it, because section 22(2) (d) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 makes it so complicated.
        7 pm
        I would then have to tell Mr. and Mrs. Mathew, "There are other problems. You must prove not only that the landlord is a bad landlord, but that
        'the circumstances by virtue of which he is (or would be) in breach of any such obligation are likely to continue'."
        My gosh! I suppose that a medium could be summoned to give evidence, and to explain what "likely to continue" means. I can envisage landlords coming along and saying, "I am terribly sorry, but the circumstances are not likely to continue."
        An order can also be made
        "where the court is satisfied … that unreasonable service charges have been made".
        What constitutes "unreasonable"? I suppose that an administration charge, plus use of the landlord's own surveyor, plus a mark-up on the cost of his contractor, is not unreasonable. A mark-up of 10 per cent. or 15 per cent. is not unreasonable; the administration charge in itself is not unreasonable. The fact that the surveyor is subject to a charge of £120 an hour is not unreasonable. We are talking about the sum total. That is where the poor tenant is having a lousy time of it.
        What worries me most is the provision that
        "A leasehold valuation tribunal may, on the application of any person interested, vary or discharge (whether conditionally or unconditionally) an order made under this section".
        It is a temporary order. Someone has gone to all that trouble, getting the tenants together; they have all put money into the kitty; he has gone to court, and had a terrible time trying to sort everything out; then he finds that the order is only temporary. The landlord then comes along and says, "I have appointed another director, and there is a new management company. It is my

        963
        brother-in-law—not my other brother-in-law, this brother-in-law. He is much better than the other one. We shall have no more problems: things will be put right." The leasehold valuation tribunal may well—probably will—discharge the application and management order. Then, six months later, the poor tenants will be back in the same boat.
        This is merely an attempt to deal with what I have complained about continually in regard to our whole approach to leasehold reform and the need to tackle rogue landlords. We make it so difficult for the tenant. We look at every way in which we can act, and always choose the most difficult path. Perhaps we consult too many lawyers. Why do we not consult the tenants, and ask them to tell us how to work things out? They will have a simpler approach: they will go straight to the heart of the matter. We have too many lawyers—and I say that as a lawyer myself. We view everything in the most complicated possible way. When I view leasehold reform as a whole, I see the complications involved.
        In Committee, I tabled an amendment and two new clauses that would have simplified the whole matter, and gone to the crux of leasehold reform. We should get rid of marriage values and all that junk. When a person buys a freehold at auction, he looks at the ground rent and multiplies it by eight. Let us say that the value of the freehold multiplies it by 10—but no, that is not good enough; it is too simple. We have to turn to marriage values, which were created by surveyors so that they could give themselves more work and which are now enshrined in legislation. If I went to an auction, I should look at the return on the investment, as I would with a company, and save 10 times. That is good enough, surely. But people are buying the freehold at eight times, and asking whether there are ways of getting around it, such as the service charge. They will have a nice little business going, and it will be the tenant who suffers.
        When someone buys a long lease, he has taken away most from that property. Let us think of it as a whole. When someone has bought a lease of 99, 125 or, in my case, 999 years, what is left? Nothing but ground rent: nothing of any value. All the talk of enhancing landlords' rights is nonsense. It is an anachronism from 200 years ago. We should view the matter in a cold, specific way, realising that we shall lose some friends on the way—although we shall lose very few, and make many more, while making our existing friends extremely happy.
        I beg the Minister to examine the matter again. He has gone so far, but it is very complicated. We shall see hardly any applications. If the measure is passed, I shall write to poor Mr. and Mrs. Mathew telling them that there is not much hope. They can make the application, but it will cost them a lot of money and take a lot of time because the Government are not prepared to do anything substantial, simple and easy about that landlord. I hope that the Minister will tell me how I could write to them differently, but I am not sure that I can.
        Sir Timothy Sainsbury: As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State knows, Hove—like parts of London—contains many long leaseholders. Like my right hon. Friend, I am angry about the fact that too many have suffered for far too long from bad and, in some cases, unscrupulous management. Freeholders have sought to
        964
        make money to which they are not entitled. Regrettably, the problem remains, despite our four bites at the cherry in 1980, 1985, 1987 and 1993, and the considerable progress made by Conservative Governments in helping long leaseholders.
        I am delighted that my right hon. Friend has introduced this package of measures in response, as he said, to representations from a number of his right hon. and hon. Friends. I agree with him that both sides must be properly protected, and that we must be fair to both sides. I say that particularly to my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire (Mr. Ashby). If we are not fair to both sides, it is unlikely that the proposed arrangements will stick. Let me also tell my hon. Friend that the landlord has an interest of value. It is not just a question of the ground rent; there is the reversion. The time involved may not be so long as his 999 years: in many cases, it may be 40 or even 30 years.
        I welcome my right hon. Friend's new clause. In particular, on behalf of many constituents whose requests I have forwarded to him and whom I have seen personally—constituents who have asked for simple and cheap procedures—I welcome the use of tribunals. I think that there is a reasonable prospect of such simplicity and cheapness if they are used.
        I wish to ask one more thing. Can we expect the tribunals to act with reasonable speed? If they do not and the leaseholders are left hanging around for some time while they try to get the right to manage, it will be very unsatisfactory.
        The codes to which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State referred are extremely important. Perhaps I should declare that I am an honorary fellow of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors. I do not want to alarm my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire too much. It is a non-pecuniary interest. The codes will be a great help. Will my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State ensure that maximum publicity is given not only to the still further enhancement of the rights of leaseholders, but to the codes? It is very important that the codes are publicised so that leaseholders know the basis on which they may bring cases before the tribunal and when it would be appropriate to do so.
        I thank my right hon. Friend for responding to the representations. We have struck the right balance and it is very important that maximum publicity is given to the Bill.
        Mr. Carrington: I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for proposing the measures. They enable leaseholders who suffer the depredations of bad freeholders to obtain some measure of justice. Whereas I accept the criticisms of my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire (Mr. Ashby), I think that it is possible to overcome them. Although, like him, I have an instinctive preference for leaseholders' right to manage, we should not pretend that it has no problems. The right to manage suggests that leaseholders must have a common interest and operate—at least in the majority—in the same interests as one another. Sadly, and indeed perversely, I have come across instances in my constituency where that has not happened.
        The valuation tribunal is a vast improvement on having to go to court, but I should like to ask one or two questions on the way in which it would operate. I should be most

        965
        grateful if my right hon. Friend could address them in his winding-up speech. The valuation tribunal will be successful only if it is possible to get a decision out of it very quickly—if the delays in hearings are brief and, once hearings start, the decision is taken speedily. That requires that, if there is overload in the number of cases going to such a tribunal, new valuation tribunals can be appointed. It also means that delays caused intentionally by the landlord claiming, for instance, that he is not yet ready with his evidence or other reasons, can be disregarded by the valuation tribunal. In other words, it means that a date can be set and justice can be delivered quickly. It also requires that the appeal process cannot be dragged out by the landlord. I am slightly concerned, not being a lawyer—as some of my hon. Friends who have spoken are—or a surveyor, that if the valuation tribunal decision is contested by the landlord, the landlord may take that decision to the courts and we might be back to square one and leaseholders having to undergo a very long and costly procedure to be able to get justice. We have to address the appeal process, and I should be grateful if my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State would consider it.
        The principal mode of getting justice is through the guidelines of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, which of course we have not seen. To a considerable extent, therefore, we are taking the whole business on trust. I recognise that the guidelines will be improved and, one hopes, put into statute by the Department of the Environment. That is encouraging, but I should be grateful if my right hon. Friend would also confirm that the guidelines will be detailed, specific and prescriptive, so that it will not be possible for a landlord to claim that he is acting in accordance with the guidelines by taking, say, three quotations from related builders for maintenance work— the first being his brother, the second his cousin, and the third of course being himself in some guise. It is only right that the guidelines on the management of a building and whether the agent who is managing the building is related to the freeholder are very specific. Clearly, the latter should not be allowed under the guidelines.
        On a happier note, I should also be grateful if my right hon. Friend would confirm whether individual leaseholders will be able to go to the tribunal. That is very important. If one leaseholder can go to the tribunal in his own right without having to refer to other leaseholders, the considerable problem in a very large number of inner-London blocks of flats that are owned by non-residential or foreign landlords who do not take a great deal of interest in the management of the block will be solved. If one leaseholder can go to the valuation tribunal and obtain justice and, in extreme circumstances, the appointment of an appropriate manager for the block, many of the wrongs that we see as Members representing inner-London constituencies will be put right. It is important that the right should be exercisable by the individual and not just by the group of leaseholders.
        Having said that and in looking forward to the reassurances that I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will give me, I welcome the proposed move forward. It is capable of being made to work in a way that will benefit the vast majority of leaseholders. I hope that if the problems that my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire described start to appear, my right hon. Friend will revisit the matter either
        966
        by order or in another Bill. No matter how long it takes, we must get the management of blocks of flats in London right and ensure that leaseholders have justice.
        7.15 pm
        Mr. Raynsford: In response to the concluding comments of the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Carrington), I can assure him that if the present Secretary of State fails to provide justice for leaseholders, as I fear he will, the next Labour Government will have no such hesitation in doing what we know is right, to ensure that leaseholders have proper remedies and redress for the many problems that have rightly been highlighted in Committee and in the House.
        In the earlier part of the debate, there was what I can describe only as an element of fantasy politics, which started with the Secretary of State and continued with the right hon. Member for Hove (Sir T. Sainsbury). If either of them believes that the debate is simply because of pressure from a few Conservative Members, they are living in cloud cuckoo land, as their right hon. Friend the Prime Minister would say.
        We are having this debate because leaseholders have rightly been campaigning energetically for many months against the scandalous abuses that have been all too evident. Such abuses have been particularly highlighted by the Evening Standard, which has done a great service, especially for leaseholders in London and in the south-east, in exposing the antics of Mr. Bebbington and others of his ilk, who have nakedly abused their opportunities and extorted money on false pretences from their leaseholders, threatening them with forfeiture if they failed to pay up.
        The campaign has been spearheaded by the splendid Campaign Against Residential Leasehold Abuse. Leaseholders and hon. Members owe it a great debt of gratitude for all its work in exposing the problem. The debate has arisen because of that campaign and because of the vote in Committee for a right to manage. If the Committee had not taken that decision, I can assure Conservative Members that we would not be having this debate.
        The Secretary of State has admitted that the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987, which was supposedly designed to give remedies and redress to leaseholders, has not been as effective as it might have been. We agree with him. We warned him at the time that it would be ineffective, in just the same way as we warned the Government that the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 would be ineffective. The first main reason why the 1987 Act is ineffective is the cost of court procedures. That is well known, and I think that it is agreed by everyone.
        The second reason why the Act is ineffective is the need for the leaseholder to prove that the landlord is in breach of his obligations, and that that breach is likely to continue. That is the wording of the Act, and, of course, it provides the easiest let-out in the book for the reluctant or dishonest landlord. All the landlord has to do is to come along to the court and say, "I am very sorry. I may have done wrong in the past, but I recognise it and I shall be a good boy in future. I shall not commit such offences again." Under the terms of the Act, the court has no option but to say, "Sorry, we cannot appoint a manager."
        The third reason, or obstacle, is the immensely complex and bureaucratic procedures, to which the hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire (Mr. Ashby) alluded.

        967
        The procedures require an endless serving of notices, and that all sorts of procedural antics are gone through, which makes it all too easy for unscrupulous freeholders—often able to deploy large batteries of qualified experts, lawyers and professionals—to bamboozle and tie up leaseholders in complications and threats of mounting costs should they try to pursue the issue any further. Those are the three elements of the problem.
        The Government lifted those provisions from part II of the 1987 Act, and put them into this Bill—with one significant and crucial amendment, that procedures would in future be effected through leasehold valuation tribunals rather than through the courts. I grant that that provision addresses the issue of costs, but it does not eliminate it. There will be costs, because the well-heeled freeholder will be able to deploy much expert advice and mount a very successful case in a leasehold valuation tribunal, which will inevitably lead the leaseholder to incur substantial costs to counter the case. So it is not true to say that the provision will eliminate costs for leaseholders, although it will reduce them. On that one aspect, I grant that the Government's proposal is better than the 1987 Act.
        The Government's proposal does not address the other two issues. The wording that the Government are now proposing for the procedure, under which the leasehold valuation tribunal will have the discretion to appoint a manager, still requires the leaseholder to prove that the landlord has been at fault and that those faults will continue. As I said, it will be all too easy for freeholders with expert lawyers to mount a case to try to demonstrate that, even if they have made mistakes in the past, they have now turned over a new leaf and will be well behaved in future. There will be endless scope for freeholders to evade the provisions.
        On the third point, as I said, the procedures are still immensely complex and tortuous, which again will give all too many opportunities for unscrupulous and reluctant freeholders to frustrate the wishes of leaseholders.
        Our view, and the view of leaseholders, is that this provision simply will not work. Like the 1987 Act, it will be a sop and not a remedy. In case any hon. Member has any doubts about that, I can only quote the comments of Chas Johnson, of the Campaign Against Residential Leasehold Abuse, who has been tireless in campaigning on the issue, writing to many hon. Members about it and making the case most forcefully. He said:
        "Do not be misled. The proposed amendment is wholly inferior to 'the right to manage' and dilutes the impact of the Bill dramatically. It is effectively a rehash of existing, unsatisfactory legislation that has remained unused since its introduction in 1987. Its only novelty is a shift in jurisdiction from the courts to the LVT to make its nebulous provisions available on a more affordable basis."
        That is the expert commentator's judgment on the new clause— a judgment that we endorse entirely.
        The right to manage, by contrast, offers effective redress for leaseholders, and it also offers safeguards for freeholders. As I stressed in an intervention on the speech of the Secretary of State, the model of the right to manage provides for the freeholder to be represented in the management company that would be set up. Freeholders would not have their rights taken away without any compensation. They would have a continuing role to play and a continuing voice, to ensure that the properties were
        968
        properly managed. They would have the ability to seek the termination of the management agreement if the management company failed.
        There is no threat in these provisions to good landlords. The case was put very forcefully in 1992 by the Grosvenor estate, which stated that it saw no threat in a right to manage. It is not good freeholders who would have anything to lose by the right to manage; it is simply the crooks—the Bebbingtons of the world—who are only too happy to exploit their opportunity to extort unreasonable sums from leaseholders and to threaten them in a scandalous manner if they fail to cough up.
        Our right to manage gives leaseholders an effective remedy against such threats, and is widely recognised by leaseholders as the right response. It is utterly inconsistent of the Government to reject it. As I have already pointed out to the Secretary of State, the Government were prepared to introduce a right to manage for council tenants, to enable them to take over the management of their homes, not if their landlord was at fault, but if the tenants wished to exercise the right to manage. I ask the Secretary of State how he can possibly justify those double standards, arguing for a right to manage for council tenants, while denying that same right to leaseholders.
        We once again see the malign influence of the big landowners who bankroll the Tory party. They have gone to the Government and said, "We cannot stomach a right to manage." The landowners have once again forced the Government to show their true colours. The Government may talk about aiding and supporting leaseholders, but they will never do so. They will never do so because they are financially dependent on the big landowners, and they will not sacrifice their financial interests to achieve justice for leaseholders.
        Earlier today, the Government survived by a whisker a vote in defence of their financial interests and in defence of landowners. But their time is running out, and they will shortly have to face the electorate. When they do, many leaseholders across the country will rightly and harshly judge them for betraying leaseholders' interests in the past few years, and particularly for what they are doing today.
        The hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire spoke of the need to be brave and bold. I invite him, and other Conservative Members who want to be brave and bold, to vote with Opposition Members today in defence of leaseholders—to ensure that leaseholders get justice in 1996 rather than having to wait until next year, when Labour will ensure that they get justice.
        Mr. Gummer: I suggest to the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford) that those final flourishes have no connection at all with the truth. Indeed, it is a pity to be attacked for something which it would be rather nice to have. Unfortunately, we do not have the substance, so we do not deserve the criticism. I wish that the hon. Gentleman had examined rather more carefully what we proposed. As my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. Carrington) said very clearly, we are seeking very much more than the hon. Gentleman would give us credit for.
        I can assure my hon. Friend that if there is overloading, I shall ensure that there are sufficient tribunals to cover the pressure. He need not be worried about appeals, because they will be not to the courts but to the Lands

        969
        Tribunal—so the simplicity continues at that point. The guidelines must be specific, as he said. I have the powers to put them into statute, and I shall ensure that they are as I want them to be. I am sure that he will be happy with them, and I give him my assurance that individual leaseholders can use that mechanism, which is one of the major advantages.
        I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Sir T. Sainsbury) about publicity for what we are doing and for how the codes will operate. I also need the publicity, because there is no doubt that measures to help leaseholders have been taken by this Government, as a result of pressure from Conservative Members of Parliament. A Conservative Secretary of State and Minister responsible for London introduced the measure at the earliest opportunity. The fact that one or two Opposition Members have suddenly discovered that this might be a subject to be interested in has not escaped those who know. A very high proportion of them will benefit from the legislation that we have introduced. It would be a pity if they had to wait for the next Labour Government, because they would have to wait for decades.
        The hon. Member for Greenwich should have looked at the facts before he made the comments that he made. The question of "likely to continue" does not apply to any but the first ground, which is a breach. A breach might, for example, be forced on people by force majeure. Something might arise that is not the landlord's fault and is outwith his power, which means that he cannot provide the service that is necessary. It would be reasonable to allow him to plead that the position was not likely to continue. However, when it comes to unreasonable charges or, for example, a departure from the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors' codes, no such claim can be made. So the protection is much greater than the hon. Gentleman suggests.
        7.30 pm
        I believe that we have found a means of protecting the leaseholder without opening ourselves up to the damaging process of law. It is equitable. It provides certainty and it protects. It is another example of the Government's defence of the leaseholder. I hope that the House will support the Government's proposals.
        Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
        The House divided: Ayes 288, Noes 279.

        Division No. 115]

        [7.30 pm

        AYES

        Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

        Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

        Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

        Bates, Michael

        Alexander, Richard

        Batiste, Spencer

        Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

        Bendall, Vivian

        Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

        Beresford, Sir Paul

        Amess, David

        Bitten, Rt Hon John

        Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

        Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

        Arbuthnot, James

        Booth, Hartley

        Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

        Boswell, Tim

        Ashby, David

        Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

        Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

        Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

        Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

        Bowden, Sir Andrew

        Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)

        Bowis, John

        Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

        Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

        Baldry, Tony

        Brandreth, Gyles

        Banks, Matthew (Southport)

        Brazier, Julian

        970

        Bright, Sir Graham

        Grylls, Sir Michael

        Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

        Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

        Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

        Hague, Rt Hon William

        Browning, Mrs Angela

        Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald

        Budgen, Nicholas

        Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

        Burt, Alistair

        Hampson, Dr Keith

        Butcher, John

        Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy

        Butler, Peter

        Hannam, Sir John

        Carlisle, John (Luton North)

        Hargreaves, Andrew

        Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

        Haselhurst, Sir Alan

        Carrington, Matthew

        Hawkins, Nick

        Carttiss, Michael

        Hawksley, Warren

        Channon, Rt Hon Paul

        Heald, Oliver

        Chapman, Sir Sydney

        Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

        Churchill, Mr

        Hendry, Charles

        Clappison, James

        Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

        Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

        Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

        Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

        Hill, James (Southampton Test)

        Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

        Horam, John

        Coe, Sebastian

        Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

        Congdon, David

        Howard, Rt Hon Michael

        Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

        Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

        Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

        Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

        Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

        Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

        Cormack, Sir Patrick

        Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

        Couchman, James

        Hunter, Andrew

        Cran, James

        Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

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

        Jack, Michael

        Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

        Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

        Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

        Jessel, Toby

        Davis, David (Boothferry)

        Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

        Day, Stephen

        Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

        Deva, Nirj Joseph

        Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

        Devlin, Tim

        Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

        Dicks, Terry

        Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

        Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

        Key, Robert

        Dover, Den

        Kirkhope, Timothy

        Duncan, Alan

        Knapman, Roger

        Duncan Smith, Iain

        Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

        Dunn, Bob

        Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)

        Durant, Sir Anthony

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

        Elletson, Harold

        Knox, Sir David

        Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

        Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

        Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

        Lait, Mrs Jacqui

        Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

        Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

        Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

        Lang, Rt Hon Ian

        Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

        Lawrence, Sir Ivan

        Evennett, David

        Legg, Barry

        Faber, David

        Leigh, Edward

        Fabricant, Michael

        Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

        Fenner, Dame Peggy

        Lester, Sir James (Broxtowe)

        Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

        Lidington, David

        Fishburn, Dudley

        Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

        Forman, Nigel

        Lord, Michael

        Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)

        Luff, Peter

        Forth, Eric

        Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

        Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

        MacGregor, Rt Hon John

        Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

        MacKay, Andrew

        Fox, Rt Hon Sir Marcus (Shipley)

        Maclean, Rt Hon David

        Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

        McLoughlin, Patrick

        French, Douglas

        McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

        Fry, Sir Peter

        Madel, Sir David

        Gale, Roger

        Maitland, Lady Olga

        Gallie, Phil

        Major, Rt Hon John

        Gardiner, Sir George

        Malone, Gerald

        Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

        Mans, Keith

        Garnier, Edward

        Marland, Paul

        Gillan, Cheryl

        Marshall, John (Hendon S)

        Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

        Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

        Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

        Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

        Gorman, Mrs Teresa

        Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

        Gorst, Sir John

        Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

        Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)

        Mellor, Rt Hon David

        Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

        Merchant, Piers

        Greenway, John (Ryedale)

        Mills, Iain

        Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

        Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

        971

        Moate, Sir Roger

        Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)

        Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector

        Spink, Dr Robert

        Montgomery, Sir Fergus

        Spring, Richard

        Moss, Malcolm

        Sproat, Iain

        Needham, Rt Hon Richard

        Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

        Neubert, Sir Michael

        Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

        Newton, Rt Hon Tony

        Steen, Anthony

        Nicholls, Patrick

        Stephen, Michael

        Nicholson, David (Taunton)

        Stern, Michael

        Norris, Steve

        Stewart, Allan

        Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

        Streeter, Gary

        Oppenheim, Phillip

        Sweeney, Walter

        Ottaway, Richard

        Tapsell, Sir Peter

        Page, Richard

        Taylor, Ian (Esher)

        Paice, James

        Taylor, John M (Solihull)

        Patnick, Sir Irvine

        Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

        Patten, Rt Hon John

        Thomason, Roy

        Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

        Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

        Pawsey, James

        Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

        Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

        Thornton, Sir Malcolm

        Pickles, Eric

        Townend, John (Bridlington)

        Porter, David (Waveney)

        Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

        Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

        Tracey, Richard

        Powell, William (Corby)

        Tredinnick, David

        Rathbone, Tim

        Trend, Michael

        Redwood, Rt Hon John

        Trotter, Neville

        Renton, Rt Hon Tim

        Twinn, Dr Ian

        Richards, Rod

        Vaughan, Sir Gerard

        Riddick, Graham

        Viggers, Peter

        Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

        Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

        Robathan, Andrew

        Walden, George

        Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

        Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

        Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

        Waller, Gary

        Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

        Ward, John

        Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

        Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

        Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

        Waterson, Nigel

        Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

        Watts, John

        Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

        Wells, Bowen

        Sackville, Tom

        Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

        Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

        Whitney, Ray

        Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

        Whittingdale, John

        Shaw, David (Dover)

        Widdecombe, Ann

        Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

        Wiggin, Sir Jerry

        Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

        Wilkinson, John

        Shersby, Sir Michael

        Willetts, David

        Sims, Roger

        Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'fld)

        Skeet, Sir Trevor

        Wolfson, Mark

        Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

        Wood, Timothy

        Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

        Yeo, Tim

        Soames, Nicholas

        Young, Rt Hon Sir George

        Speed, Sir Keith

        Tellers for the Ayes:

        Spencer, Sir Derek

        Mr. Derek Conway and

        Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

        Mr. Simon Burns.

        NOES

        Abbott, Ms Diane

        Bermingham, Gerald

        Adams, Mrs Irene

        Berry, Roger

        Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

        Betts, Clive

        Allen, Graham

        Blair, Rt Hon Tony

        Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

        Blunkett, David

        Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

        Boateng, Paul

        Armstrong, Hilary

        Boyes, Roland

        Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

        Bradley, Keith

        Ashton, Joe

        Bray, Dr Jeremy

        Austin-Walker, John

        Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

        Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

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

        Barron, Kevin

        Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

        Battle, John

        Burden, Richard

        Bayley, Hugh

        Byers, Stephen

        Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

        Caborn, Richard

        Beith, Rt Hon A J

        Callaghan, Jim

        Bell, Stuart

        Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

        Benn, Rt Hon Tony

        Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

        Bennett, Andrew F

        Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

        Benton, Joe

        Cann, Jamie

        972

        Chidgey, David

        Heppell, John

        Chisholm, Malcolm

        Hill, Keith (Streatham)

        Church, Judith

        Hinchliffe, David

        Clapham, Michael

        Hodge, Margaret

        Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

        Hoey, Kate

        Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

        Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

        Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

        Hoon, Geoffrey

        Clelland, David

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

        Clwyd, Mrs Ann

        Howarth, George (Knowsley North)

        Coffey, Ann

        Howells, Dr Kim (Pontypridd)

        Cohen, Harry

        Hoyle, Doug

        Connarty, Michael

        Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

        Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

        Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

        Corbett, Robin

        Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

        Corbyn, Jeremy

        Hume, John

        Corston, Jean

        Hutton, John

        Cousins, Jim

        Illsley, Eric

        Cox, Tom

        Ingram, Adam

        Cunliffe, Lawrence

        Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

        Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

        Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

        Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

        Jamieson, David

        Cunningham, Roseanna

        Janner, Greville

        Dafis, Cynog

        Jenkins, Brian (SE Staff)

        Darling, Alistair

        Johnston, Sir Russell

        Davidson, Ian

        Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

        Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

        Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

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

        Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

        Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

        Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

        Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

        Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

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

        Jowell, Tessa

        Denham, John

        Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

        Dewar, Donald

        Keen, Alan

        Dixon, Don

        Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)

        Dobson, Frank

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

        Donohoe, Brian H

        Khabra, Piara S

        Dowd, Jim

        Kilfoyle, Peter

        Dunnachie, Jimmy

        Kirkwood, Archy

        Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

        Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

        Eagle, Ms Angela

        Lewis, Terry

        Eastham, Ken

        Liddell, Mrs Helen

        Etherington, Bill

        Litherland, Robert

        Evans, John (St Helens N)

        Livingstone, Ken

        Ewing, Mrs Margaret

        Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

        Fatchett, Derek

        Llwyd, Elfyn

        Faulds, Andrew

        Loyden, Eddie

        Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

        Lynne, Ms Liz

        Fisher, Mark

        McAllion, John

        Foster, Rt Hon Derek

        McAvoy, Thomas

        Foster, Don (Bath)

        McCartney, Ian

        Foulkes, George

        McCartney, Robert

        Fraser, John

        McCrea, The Reverend William

        Fyfe, Maria

        McFall, John

        Galbraith, Sam

        McGrady, Eddie

        Galloway, George

        McKelvey, William

        Gapes, Mike

        Mackinlay, Andrew

        Garrett, John

        McLeish, Henry

        George, Bruce

        Maclennan, Robert

        Gerrard, Neil

        McMaster, Gordon

        Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

        MacShane, Denis

        Godsiff, Roger

        Maddock, Diana

        Golding, Mrs Llin

        Mahon, Alice

        Gordon, Mildred

        Mandelson, Peter

        Graham, Thomas

        Marshall, David (Shettleston)

        Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

        Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

        Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

        Martin, Michael J (Springbum)

        Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

        Martlew, Eric

        Grocott, Bruce

        Maxton, John

        Gunnell, John

        Meacher, Michael

        Hall, Mike

        Meale, Alan

        Hanson, David

        Michael, Alun

        Hardy, Peter

        Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

        Harman, Ms Harriet

        Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

        Harvey, Nick

        Milburn, Alan

        Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

        Miller, Andrew

        Henderson, Doug

        Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

        Hendron, Dr Joe

        Moonie, Dr Lewis

        973

        Morgan, Rhodri

        Shore, Rt Hon Peter

        Morley, Elliot

        Short, Clare

        Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

        Simpson, Alan

        Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

        Skinner, Dennis

        Mowlam, Marjorie

        Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

        Mudie, George

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

        Mullin, Chris

        Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

        Murphy, Paul

        Snape, Peter

        Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

        Soley, Clive

        Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

        Spellar, John

        O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)

        Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

        O'Brien, William (Normanton)

        Steinberg, Gerry

        O'Hara, Edward

        Strang, Dr. Gavin

        Olner, Bill

        Straw, Jack

        Paisley, The Reverend Ian

        Sutcliffe, Gerry

        Pearson, Ian

        Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

        Pendry, Tom

        Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

        Pickthall, Colin

        Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

        Pike, Peter L

        Thumham, Peter

        Pope, Greg

        Timms, Stephen

        Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

        Tipping, Paddy

        Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)

        Touhig, Don

        Trickett, Jon

        Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

        Turner, Dennis

        Prescott, Rt Hon John

        Tyler, Paul

        Primarolo, Dawn

        Vaz, Keith

        Purchase, Ken

        Wallace, James

        Quin, Ms Joyce

        Walley, Joan

        Radice, Giles

        Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

        Randall, Stuart

        Wareing, Robert N

        Raynsford, Nick

        Watson, Mike

        Reid, Dr John

        Welsh, Andrew

        Rendel, David

        Wicks, Malcolm

        Robertson, George (Hamilton)

        Wigley, Dafydd

        Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

        Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

        Roche, Mrs Barbara

        Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

        Rogers, Allan

        Wilson, Brian

        Rooker, Jeff

        Wise, Audrey

        Rooney, Terry

        Worthington, Tony

        Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

        Wray, Jimmy

        Rowlands, Ted

        Wright, Dr Tony

        Ruddock, Joan

        Young, David (Bolton SE)

        Salmond, Alex

        Sedgemore, Brian

        Tellers for the Noes:

        Sheerman, Barry

        Mr. Jon Owen Jones and

        Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

        Mr. Peter Hain.

        Question accordingly agreed to.
        Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New clause 16

      PERIOD AFTER WHICH ACQUISITION ORDER MAY BE MADE
      '. In Part III of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 (compulsory acquisition by tenants of their landlord's interest), in section 29(3) (conditions for making acquisition orders: period since appointment of manager under Part II) for "three years" substitute "two years".'.—[Mr. Brandreth.]
      Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New clause 17

      TEXT OF PART II OF THE LANDLORD AND TENANT ACT 1987, AS AMENDED
      '. The text of Part II of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 as amended by this Act is set out in Schedule (Text of Part II of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987, as amended).'.—[Mr. Brandreth.]
      Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New clause 12

      FORM OF NOTICES UNDER SECTION 21 OF THE HOUSING ACT 1988
      '.—(1) Section 21 of the Housing Act 1988 (recovery of possession on expiry or termination of assured shorthold tenancy) shall be amended as follows.
      (2) In subsection (1) (b) (which requires the landlord under a fixed term tenancy to give two months' notice to recover possession), after "notice" there shall be inserted "in writing".
      (3) In subsection (4) (a) (corresponding provision for periodic tenancies), after "notice", where it first occurs, there shall be inserted "in writing".'.—[Mr. Clappison.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Clappison: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 150, in clause 86, page 59, line 31, at end insert—
      '(8) The notices referred to in paragraph (b) of subsection (1) and paragraph (a) of subsection (4) above shall be in writing and in such form as may be prescribed by regulations.'.
      Mr. Clappison: This new clause clarifies my undertaking in Committee to reconsider whether written notices should be given by a landlord who is seeking possession. Although the previous practice does not seem to have caused any problems, I agree that it would clarify matters if such notices were required to be in writing. The new clause seeks to achieve that.
      I agree that notices should be in writing, but the matter should not be taken so far that a prescribed notice be required, as is proposed in the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mrs. Maddock). That would be an unnecessary formality and I advise the House to resist it.
      7.45 pm
      Mr. Chris Davies: Following the proposal in Committee, the Minister's proposals simply do not go far enough. Amendment No. 150 is a simple, technical amendment that would reduce the need for clarification and for matters to be tested in court at a later date. It is in the Government's interest to accept it.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

  New cause 13

    DUTY OF LANDLORD TO PROVIDE STATEMENT OF TERMS OF ASSURED SHORTHOLD TENANCY
    '. After section 20 of the Housing Act 1988 there shall be inserted—
    "Post-Housing Act 1996 tenancies: duty of landlord to provide statement as to terms of tenancy
    20A.-(1) Subject to subsection (3) below, a tenant under an assured shorthold tenancy to which section 19A above applies may, by notice in writing, require the landlord under that tenancy to provide him with a written statement of any term of the tenancy which—

    (a) falls within subsection (2) below, and

    (b) is not evidenced in writing.

    (2) The following terms of a tenancy fall within this subsection, namely—

    (a) the date on which the tenancy began or, if it is a statutory periodic tenancy or a tenancy to which section 39(7) below applies, the date on which the tenancy came into being,

    (b) the rent payable under the tenancy and the dates on which that rent is payable,

    (c) any term providing for a review of the rent payable under the tenancy, and

    (d) in the case of a fixed term tenancy, the length of the fixed term.

    (3) No notice may be given under subsection (1) above in relation to a term of the tenancy if—

    (a) the landlord under the tenancy has provided a statement of that term in response to an earlier notice under that subsection given by the tenant under the tenancy, and

    (b) the term has not been varied since the provision of the statement referred to in paragraph (a) above.

    (4) A landlord who fails, without reasonable excuse, to comply with a notice under subsection (1) above within the period of 28 days beginning with the date on which he received the notice is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale.
    (5) A statement provided for the purposes of subsection (1) above shall not be regarded as conclusive evidence of what was agreed by the parties to the tenancy in question.
    (6) Where—

    (a) a term of a statutory periodic tenancy is one which has effect by virtue of section 5(3) (e) above, or

    (b) a term of a tenancy to which subsection (7) of section 39 below applies is one which has effect by virtue of subsection (6) (e) of that section,

    subsection (1) above shall have effect in relation to it as if paragraph (b) related to the term of the tenancy from which it derives.
    (7) In subsections (1) and (3) above—

    (a) references to the tenant under the tenancy shall, in the case of joint tenants, be taken to be references to any of the tenants, and

    (b) references to the landlord under the tenancy shall, in the case of joint landlords, be taken to be references to any of the landlords.".'.—[Mr. Clappison.]

    Brought up, and read the First time.
    Mr. Clappison: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also amendment No. 17, in schedule 7, page 147, line 28, at end insert—'Tenancies excluded by absence of written tenancy agreement—
    (4A) An assured tenancy for which there is no written tenancy agreement.'
    Mr. Clappison: Amendment No. 17 deals with the question of what happens where a landlord and tenant do not put their agreement into writing. The amendment would cause such positions to result in a full assured tenancy being created. That is not a good idea. I have reflected on what the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford) said in Committee about that. It is neither equitable nor logical that, when landlord and tenant do not put their agreement into writing, that consequence should follow.
    976
    It may not be entirely prudent for a landlord not to have an agreement in writing—not least from the landlord's own point of view—but a full assured tenancy should not be created for that reason, not least because that would defeat the landlord's intention. It is not fair—or right— when the landlord intends to create an assured shorthold tenancy and when a tenant agrees on that, for a full assured tenancy to be created merely because of the absence of an agreement in writing. The amendment should not be added to schedule 7 as one of the exceptions in relation to assured shorthold tenancies. I note that all the other exceptions where assured tenancies are created depend on the landlord's intention.
    The amendment would defeat the landlord's intention. It runs contrary to what we are seeking to do throughout the Bill: it would create unnecessary formality and, in effect, a trap into which some unwary landlords might fall. It is reasonable, however, for landlords to provide more information to tenants. New clause 13 achieves that in a sensible way. It requires the landlord to provide the tenant, on request, with written details about the date that the tenancy began, the rent and other important details. That will provide tenants who have oral agreements with their landlords with the most important terms relating to rent and security of tenure, and will provide an adequate safeguard against the minority of landlords who might seek to exploit their tenants' rights.
    Where a landlord fails to comply with his tenant's request within 28 days and there is no reasonable excuse for his failure, the landlord will be liable, on summary conviction, to a fine. That achieves an appropriate balance.
    Mr. Raynsford: It will be no surprise to the Minister to learn that we profoundly disagree with him. His comments show the extent to which the Conservative party has, in the past decade, lurched to the right. When assured tenancies and assured shorthold tenancies were introduced by the late Lord Ridley—not someone who would be deemed to be on the wet side of the Conservative party—the assumption was that normal letting would take place through an assured tenancy. The shorthold tenancy was designed as a tenancy for separate purposes, such as when a landlord wanted to let only for a short period. I remember Lord Ridley saying that, for that reason, shorthold tenancies would attract a lower rent than assured tenancies.
    Times have changed, and there has been a progressive erosion of tenants' rights. The shorthold tenancy has become far more popular than the assured tenancy and, because of the acute shortage of rented housing, it often commands a rent identical to that of the more secure assured tenancy. Consequently, landlords have no reason to offer an assured tenancy.
    The Government are now compounding that problem by making the assured shorthold tenancy the default tenancy. We believe that there should be a proper fair balance between the interests of landlord and tenant, not the complete surrender that the Government are performing to the interests of the landlord at all costs, while the interests of tenants are abandoned.
    We believe that, where a landlord fails to prescribe the fact that he wishes to let for a short period, it is right and proper that a full assured tenancy should be created, and that is the purpose of our amendment. We greatly regret

    977
    the fact that the Government will not accept it, but we understand why. Their lurch to the right says it all. Undoubtedly, the matter will need to be revisited after the general election.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

  New clause 24

    SUCCESSION ON DEATH OF TENANT: HOUSING ACT 1985
    'After subsection (4) of section 88 of the Housing Act 1985 there shall be inserted—
    "(5) Nothing in this section shall be taken as preventing any person from qualifying to succeed a tenant in accordance with section 87 above where the tenant concerned has died and had himself succeeded from his spouse or from a joint tenancy with his spouse.".'— [Mr. Betts.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    Mr. Betts: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also amendment No. 160, in clause 113, page 72, line 20, at end insert—
    '(4) Nothing in this section shall be taken as preventing any person from qualifying to succeed a tenant in accordance with section 112 above where the tenant concerned has died and had himself succeeded from his spouse or from a joint tenancy with his spouse.'.
    Mr. Betts: May I put on the record something that I forgot to say in my last contribution? I declare a potential interest in leasehold reform, in that I am a leaseholder. I declared that in Committee, and although my interest does not affect the new clause and amendment that we are discussing, I thought that it would be helpful to put the fact on the record.
    New clause 24 and amendment No. 160 involve the issue of succession, which I raised in Committee. I did not get a satisfactory response from the Minister, but he promised the Committee that he would go away and consider how joint tenancies affected succession. The fact that he has not tabled an amendment on the subject implies that, although he could not find a reason for not tabling one, he failed to do so simply because the Government do not support the principle for which we are arguing.
    That is a pity, because my new clause and amendment are an attempt to deal with the position of children who live for much of their lives with their parents, often so as to care for them, and with what happens to them when, when they are in their 40s or 50s and have lived in the family home all their lives, their parents die.
    The perverse aspect is that if there are two parents and the father is the tenant but the mother dies first, the law as it stands allows the child to succeed to the tenancy, because there has not been a previous succession. But if the father dies, the mother succeeds to the tenancy and then the mother dies, the child cannot succeed automatically, because there has already been one succession. The child is potentially homeless, and can be evicted.
    I do not say that that happens every time, but children in that position have no surety or guarantee that the succession will be theirs. That causes real concern both for the parents, who can often feel an element of guilt for having put the
    978
    children in that position, and for the children, for whom there is a great element of uncertainty because when they lose their parents, they may also lose their home.
    That difficulty has been compounded by the fact that joint tenancies are now much more usual in local authority properties. As the law stands, if there is a joint tenancy and one of the parents dies, the other parent succeeds as a sole tenant. Again, because of the way in which the law is written, the child cannot then have an automatic right to succeed to the tenancy. It cannot be right that, ultimately, accidents of history—such as which parent dies first, and whether there is a joint tenancy or a sole tenancy—decide whether the child has the right to succeed. That is not equitable.
    No one argued in Committee that what I said was wrong, so this time I have tried to phrase the new clause and the amendment more narrowly, so that exclusions from the right of succession do not apply when, although there has been a previous succession, the tenancy has been passed only from one spouse to another, or to a spouse from a previous joint tenancy of both spouses. That seems to avoid the danger of drawing the provision too widely.
    I hope that the Minister will rethink, and will accept the amendment, even at this late stage, not because I would get any personal credit thereby, but simply because there are so many people, especially elderly people, who are frightened and worried about what will happen to their children's home when they die, and so many children who do not have a guarantee that they can succeed to their parents' tenancy. In the interests of compassion and of fairness to those people, I hope that the Minister will reconsider.
    The Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration (Mr. David Curry): The hon. Gentleman is talking about what should happen when there are exceptional circumstances; I presume that he does not envisage a sort of perpetual succession in normal circumstances. None the less, because of local authorities' need to make effective use of their stock, I do not believe that the one-succession rule should be abolished.
    There has been considerable debate both inside and outside the Committee about whether succession rights should be extended to cover couples of the same sex who share a home, and we shall discuss that matter on a later amendment. I shall then suggest that the best approach to the difficult situation in which a person may lose his or her home because a tenant has died is for the local authority to grant a tenancy to the remaining person.
    We propose to issue unequivocal guidance to local authorities recommending that course of action, which will be equally applicable to the position in which someone faces the loss of his or her home because the one-succession rule bites. I hope that, in the light of that assurance, which I shall be able to amplify on the later amendment, the hon. Gentleman will not feel the need to persist with his new clause and amendment.
    Mr. Betts: I shall not push the new clause, but I am not totally satisfied with the Minister's answer. I realise that he will issue guidance, but I hope that, when he does, he will make it clear to authorities that they should include that right in their tenancy policies, up front. The right should not be given to people after their parents die; it should be available to them as a right, if local authorities put it in their policies, so that, before the unhappy event

    979
    of their parents' death, people will have the certain knowledge that they will be secure in their tenancy. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
    Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

  Clause 78

    DETERMINATION OF REASONABLENESS OF SERVICE CHARGES
    Mr. Clappison: I beg to move amendment No. 87, in page 52, line 10, at end insert—
    '(6) No appeal shall lie to the Lands Tribunal from a decision of a leasehold valuation tribunal under this Act without the leave of the leasehold valuation tribunal concerned or the Lands Tribunal.
    (7) On any such appeal—

    (a) the Lands Tribunal may exercise any power available to the leasehold valuation tribunal in relation to the original matter, and

    (b) an order of the Lands Tribunal may be enforced in the same way as an order of the leasehold valuation tribunal.'.

    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also Government amendments Nos. 88 to 91.
    Mr. Clappison: The amendment would establish affordable justice through the leasehold valuation tribunals. It is balanced with preserved rights of appeal in limited but appropriate circumstances.
    Mr. Raynsford: Given the Secretary of State's penchant for fantasy politics, perhaps it is appropriate to remind the House that the amendment was moved by the Opposition in Committee, and the Government opposed it. That was done partly on technical grounds raised by the judge in charge of the Lands Tribunal, Judge Bernard Marder, with whom I corresponded, concerning the tribunal's methods of working.
    I am glad to see that the Government have had second thoughts and have responded to our pressure for affordable justice. We want to ensure that landlords cannot use their financial muscle to deter leaseholders from obtaining justice. Rights of appeal should be allowed in proper circumstances, but we believe that they should be subject to controls to prevent abuse of the system whereby rich freeholders can exercise undue influence on the outcome, and deter leaseholders on modst incomes from pursuing their claims.
    We therefore welcome the amendment, but we do not like to let it pass without ensuring that hon. Members are aware of its origin and ancestry, and of the Opposition's contribution to the measure that will now reach the statute book.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Amendments made: No. 88, in page 52, line 29, leave out 'about fees' and insert 'under this section'.
    No. 89, in page 52, line 43, after 'which' insert
    ', unless the order contains only such provision as is mentioned in subsection (1), '.
    No. 90, in page 53, line 4, after 'or' insert
    'the Lands Tribunal, or in connection with'.
    980
    No. 91, in page 53, line 18, at end insert—
    '( ) in the case of proceedings before the Lands Tribunal, to the tribunal;'.—[Mr. Clappison.]

  Clause 80

    APPOINTMENT OF MANAGER BY THE COURT
    Amendment made: No. 92, in page 54, line 21, at end insert—
    '(ac) where the court is satisfied—
    (i) that the landlord has failed to comply with any relevant provision of a code of practice approved by the Secretary of State under section 87 of the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 (codes of management practice), and
    (ii) that it is just and convenient to make the order in all the circumstances of the case;'. —[Mr. Clappison.]

  Clause 81
    RIGHT TO SELF-MANAGEMENT
    Amendment made: No. 93, in page 54, line 42, leave out from beginning to end of line 21 on page 56. —[Mr. Clappison.]
  Schedule 5
    ASSESSMENT OF THE RELATIVE VALUE OF THE LANDLORD' S INTERESTS IN THE PREMISES AND OF THE QUALIFYING TENANT'S INTERESTS IN THE PREMISES: SCHEDULE INSERTED AFTER SCHEDULE 1 TO THE LANDLORD AND TENANT ACT 1987
    Amendment made: No. 140, in page 145, line 17, leave out from beginning to end of line 31 on page 146. —[Mr. Clappison.]
  Schedule 6
    TERMS OF MANAGEMENT LEASE: SCHEDULE INSERTED AFTER SCHEDULE 1A TO THE LANDLORD AND TENANT ACT 1987
    Amendment made: No. 141, in page 146, line 32, leave out from beginning to end of line 45. —[Mr. Clappison.]
  Clause 82

    VALUATION: COLLECTIVE ENFRANCHISEMENT
    Mr. Clappison: I beg to move amendment No. 94, in page 56, line 37, leave out '4' and insert '5'.
    In Committee, we promised to reconsider the level of fine for failing to offer tenants the right of first refusal. On reflection, we agreed that it should be raised to level 5, which is the highest point on the standard scale.
    8 pm
    Mr. Raynsford: I will not detain the House, but again I would not wish this opportunity to pass without the Government acknowledging that it was the Opposition who raised the issue in Committee. We welcome the increase but remain sceptical about whether it is an adequate penalty for the offence. The circumstances that led to this involved the failure of some very large landowners to comply with their obligations to offer the right of first refusal to their leaseholders. For them, a fine of £2,500 or even £5,000 is a relatively trivial sum.

    981
    We proposed a more effective alternative sanction: the withdrawal of the right to demand service charges and ground rent while they were in breach of their obligations.
    Nevertheless, we are pleased that the Government have recognised that the penalty should be increased, although we notice that they propose only that some of the largest and wealthiest landowners in the country should be liable to a fine of exactly the same amount as the humblest homeless person pays, who fails to give accurate information in making a claim for housing under parts VI and VII. There is an extraordinary incongruity about those levels of penalty. I leave hon. Members to draw their own conclusions about where the Government's priorities lie.
    Amendment agreed to.

  Clause 86

    RESTRICTION ON RECOVERY OF POSSESSION ON EXPIRY OR TERMINATION
    Mr. Clappison: I beg to move amendment No. 58, in page 59, line 18, after first 'the' insert 'immediately preceding'.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also Government amendments Nos. 59, 60A, 61A and 146.
    Mr. Clappison: The amendments are concerned with the clarity of wording of the established minimum period of six months for an assured shorthold tenancy. We sought to enshrine that period through the Bill's previous wording, which had attracted some criticism in respect of its clarity. I hope that this wording is clearer and that it will win more plaudits.
    Mr. Raynsford: I invite the House to judge what the Minister has just said. The clause as previously worded read:
    "where the replacement tenancy came into being on the coming to an end of a tenancy which was not a replacement tenancy, to the tenancy on the coming to an end of which the replacement tenancy came into being, and".
    That is being amended to read:
    "where the replacement tenancy came into being on the coming to an end of a tenancy which was not a replacement tenancy to the immediately preceding tenancy on the coming to an end of which the replacement tenancy came into being, and".
    I invite the Minister to explain whether that achieves any greater clarity and whether that gobbledegook will be understood by anyone other than the clerks and parliamentary draftsmen who concocted that extraordinary phrase.
    Mr. Betts: Can the Minister confirm that, after the initial six-month period, even under the revised wording, there is no effective security for tenants and that they can be evicted from a property at a moment's notice by the landlord?
    Mr. Clappison: The hon. Gentleman may know that that is the established situation and has been since the regime came into being. Assured shorthold tenancies were earlier praised by the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford).
    982
    Amendment agreed to.
    Amendments made: No. 59, in page 59, line 18, leave out from 'tenancy' to and' in line 19.
    No. 60A, in page 59, line 21, leave out
    'on the coming to an end of which'
    and insert 'immediately preceding'.
    No. 61A, in page 59, line 22, leave out 'came into being'.—[Mr. Clappison.]

  Clause 88

    MANDATORY POSSESSION FOR NON-PAYMENT OF RENT: REDUCTION IN ARREARS REQUIRED
    Mr. Raynsford: I beg to move amendment No. 11, in page 60, line 5, leave out 'eight' and insert 'more than thirteen.'
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also amendment No. 12, in page 60, line 7, leave out 'two' and insert 'more than three'.
    Mr. Raynsford: Amendment No. 11 deals with the mandatory ground for possession for assured tenants. The Government propose to reduce the period covered by that ground from three months to two. That means that a tenant who is in arrears of only two months can be subject to a mandatory ground for possession against which there is no defence. I stress that there is an additional discretionary ground open to landlords to seek possession where there are any arrears. The opportunity to seek possession is available in any case. We are sceptical about the reduction of the period of the mandatory ground because it could lead to tenants suffering injustice through no fault of theirs.
    In Committee, we highlighted the number of people who do not get their housing benefit entitlement in time. Sadly, some local authorities are less efficient than others and do not deliver it in the 14 days in which they are supposed to process claims. In some cases, they take several months to process claims. A tenant left waiting for several months for housing benefit who had no means of paying the rent would soon fall foul of this mandatory ground and be liable to lose his or her home. That would be an injustice.
    We tabled amendments in Committee, but unfortunately the Government did not see fit to accept them. We therefore raise the issue again tonight. In view of the pressure on the timetable and to allow us make progress, and being aware that the issues will need to be revisited soon, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: I beg to move amendment No. 37, in page 60, line 7, at end add
    'and
    (c) at the end of Ground 8 there shall be added—
    "Provided that no order for possession shall be made under this Ground if the Court is satisfied that prior to the date of hearing the tenant has made a claim for housing benefit in respect of the period to which the arrears relate in whole or in part and which has not been finally determined by the local housing authority.".'.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also amendment No. 38, in page 60, line 7, at end add

    983
    'and
    (c) at the end of Ground 8 there shall be added—
    "Provided that no order for possession shall be made under this Ground if the Court is satisfied that the tenant has an arguable set-off against the unpaid rent of an amount of liquidated or unliquidated damages capable of reducing the rent outstanding to below the amounts claimed. ".'.
    Mr. Hughes: The amendments are the flesh on the bones of the argument that the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford) was seeking to attribute to his amendments which were considered first. They are realistic and important. Even at this late stage, I ask the Minister to accede to them.
    The amendments deal with possession in assured shorthold tenancies, and the problem that often arises of people who have not had their housing benefit paid. Many hon. Members will have met constituents who have faced possession proceedings when the whole of the arrears is attributable to a failure to pay housing benefit.
    Amendment No. 37 gives the complete guarantee that was sought in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mrs. Maddock). It states:
    "no order for possession shall be made … the Court is satisfied that prior to the date of hearing the tenant has made a claim for housing benefit in respect of the period to which the arrears relate … and which has not finally been determined".
    If an application has been made, a person should not be at risk of losing his or her home while the bureaucracy is grinding, as it often does, exceeding slow.
    Amendment No. 38 deals with a similar but arguably slightly less common occurrence, and says that, likewise, there should not be an order for possession if the court is satisfied that the tenant has a set-off against unpaid rent, perhaps for damages for disrepair. All sorts of situations can arise in which it is clear that there is a claim in the other direction that would reduce the rent arrears. It would be unjust that possession proceedings in such cases should be taken to a conclusion. That is especially important for constituencies in which assured shorthold tenancies are now common.
    I hope that the Minister will be at least positive, and possibly generous, and make life easy by accepting both amendments. We could then both sit down and move on.
    Mr. Clappison: I should like to be generous, but the issue was fully canvassed in Committee. The starting point needs to be that the order for possession will not be made immediately after two months. In practice, it will be a longer period, because, as the hon. Gentleman may know, an extra period of two weeks is required after proceedings commence before a hearing can take place. When one has to wait a little while for a court hearing, it will be longer than that.
    I think that it was established in Committee that, in practice, the problem of housing benefit would be dealt with in that fairly lengthy period—somewhere in excess of three months. I respectfully remind the hon. Gentleman that, under social security legislation, housing benefit claims should be processed within the statutory 14 days of all the required information being received. If the deadline is not met, local authorities have a statutory duty to make—
    Mrs. Maddock: That is the point—it is the getting together of the information so that the claims can be
    984
    processed within the 14 days that is the problem. We discussed that in Committee, and I thought that the Minister understood our concerns.
    Mr. Clappison: If the hon. Lady would allow me to continue, I will deal with her point.
    Where the delay is not the fault of the tenant and the deadline is not met, local authorities have a statutory duty to make payments on account. We explored that issue fairly fully in Committee.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: If the Minister is going to be bold enough to resist the amendments, can he at least ensure that his colleagues in other Departments instruct and inform all courts of the statutory duties, so that no court is in error about the fact that there is an obligation on someone to pay up? That would at least alleviate the problem.
    Mr. Clappison: I will reflect on what the hon. Gentleman has said. I should have thought that, as a matter of basic knowledge, courts would be aware of their statutory duties.
    On amendment No. 38, to amend ground 8 to require the court to offset liquidated and unliquidated damages against rent arrears would encourage tenants to counter-claim for damages due to disrepair in all ground 8 cases. That would lead to long and protracted disputes about the cause and extent of the damages claimed.
    I have listened carefully to hon. Members' arguments, but the existing state of the law caters sufficiently well for the question of repairs and rent that is owed.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: The Minister has not persuaded me. On the first issue, a period of time might in theory be wonderful, but the reality of the world we live in is that the system does not deliver even if one extends it for one, two or three months. I am afraid that we are not satisfied, so I shall allow the House to resolve the matter in the usual way.
    Amendment negatived.

  Clause 91

    ASSURED PERIODIC TENANCIES: SAME SEX PARTNERS
    Mr. Curry: I beg to move amendment No. 26, in page 60, leave out lines 29 to 33.
    The outcome of our discussions in Committee on succession rights for same-sex partners left us with a Bill that faced two ways. According to the amendment that the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson) moved successfully, a couple of the same sex in an assured tenancy living together in a relationship corresponding to that of man and wife—I think that that indicates a homosexual relationship, which I assume was her intention—enjoy the right of succession when one partner dies. By contrast, a couple in the same position with a secure tenancy—that is. with a local authority—would not have that right, because a parallel amendment to that end failed. Clearly, that is not a sustainable position, and that is why the Government have tabled amendment No. 26, to delete clause 91 and put assured and secure tenants on the same footing.

    985
    We have taken that course rather than resolving the matter by introducing a clause similar to clause 91 to cover secure tenants, because we are concerned about the approach taken in clause 91 and feel that there are better ways to resolve the issues.
    The law as it stood, before clause 91 was introduced, provided protection to adults of the same sex who planned to share their home on a long-term basis. Under the provisions of the Housing Acts 1985 and 1988, local authorities, housing associations and private landlords have the power to grant joint tenancies, which means that, when one tenant dies, the remaining tenant can keep his home.
    That provides a distinct advantage over the rather narrow provisions of clause 91, which relate only to those same-sex couples who live as if they were man and wife. When the tenant dies in such a relationship, the remaining partner can find him or herself in a difficult position. The problem can be no less acute for those left on their own in other types of household.
    A person may have acted for a tenant as an unpaid live-in carer, or a couple of elderly women, or men, may live together for companionship, or perhaps for economy. A joint tenancy would mean that a person left in that situation would not, at a time of great grief, have the added burden of worrying about losing his or her home. Clause 91, on the other hand, would deal only with the situation in which the tenant and the remaining resident had had a sexual relationship.
    A joint tenancy is the better solution, but there may be situations where a person has been sharing a household with someone else who is a sole tenant but for some reason has not sought to have the tenancy converted to a joint one. When the tenant dies, the other person will not have the right to take up that tenancy. In such cases, if the person had been living with the tenant for the year before the tenant's death, had been looking after the tenant, or had, or accepted, responsibility for his or her dependants, we would normally expect the local authority to grant the tenancy to that person, or find them suitable alternative accommodation.
    Another clear advantage in giving local authorities the flexibility to resolve those situations is that it does not lose sight of their primary obligation to meet housing need in their areas by making the most effective and equitable use of all the housing stock at their disposal.
    8.15 pm
    There has been concern about a lack of uniformity among local authorities in how they respond to such situations. I propose to deal with that by issuing guidance shortly, which will set out unambiguously the Government's view that, taking into account the need to make the best use of their stock, local authorities should normally provide—those will be the words that will appear in the guidance—for the type of cases that I have described by granting either joint tenancies or a further tenancy where a sole tenant has died. That will be unequivocal guidance, and it will not be confined to couples with a sexual relationship. We will pay close attention to the way in which local authorities implement it.
    Mr. Michael Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend as what he has said is helpful.
    986
    May I press him a little further on the guidance? I assume that it will be published guidance to all local authorities. Can he say when we can expect it to be issued?
    Mr. Curry: It will be published guidance to all local authorities, and it will be issued before the Whitsun recess.
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: My hon. Friend will know that I am new to this matter. I do not see any reference to sexual relationships in the lines that he is proposing to leave out. Is that relationship understood, or is it in some other part of the legislation?
    Mr. Curry: My hon. Friend will find that the amendment moved by the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate referred to people living in a relationship corresponding to that of husband and wife. I drew the conclusion that that could bear only one interpretation. My concern was not to exclude those circumstances but to widen them, so that people living in the sort of relationships that I have described would also be covered by the scope of my proposals. I am proposing a more inclusive alternative, not an exclusive one.
    Ms Glenda Jackson: I am grateful to the Minister, and also to the hon. Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) for forwarding me a copy of the guidance that the Government intend—I presume—to forward to local authorities. I must be honest with the Minister. We have been given that promise before. It was made to the Standing Committee on the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Bill in 1993. As we all know, nothing has happened.
    Mr. Curry: I repeat here in the Chamber and in a full sitting of the House that the guidance will be issued before this Whitsun recess.
    Ms Jackson: I am grateful for that assurance, which will appear in the public record. Even so, such guidance as has been drafted and will go to local authorities causes me concern in certain areas, not least the final paragraph of paragraph 6, which states:
    "the local authority should normally grant a tenancy to the remaining person or persons, either in the same home or in suitable alternative accommodation".
    This has caused me some concern.
    We are discussing situations in which there have been relationships. When I introduced the amendment, I said that there must have been a stable relationship in the domestic residence for a year—that the rules that at present apply to heterosexual relationships must apply to single-sex relationships. We have been reassured that the guidelines will be sent to all local authorities. The words
    "either in the same home or in suitable alternative accommodation"
    cause me some concern. No doubt relationships will have been established within the community. For example, in a same-sex relationship where both partners are female, there may be children involved, and they may attend the local school. There will be disturbance and disorientation for the children if they are moved to another location. Human relationships are created within a particular environment.
    From personal experience, I know that some gay people suffer abuse because of their relationships. The partner who is left may be moved from an area where gay

    987
    relationships are acknowledged and accepted, and where gay people are not abused, into an area where they are abused—I am talking not only about physical abuse, but about abuse in which their residence is attacked, with bricks thrown through windows and people hammering on doors in the middle of the night. This is something that causes me concern.
    Is it possible for the Government to redraft the guideline or for them to be more precise about what they regard as "suitable alternative accommodation"? It has been my experience that, when people have physically to move from what has been regarded as their home—coming, as it invariably does, on the loss of a loved one—it creates extreme difficulties.
    I am reassured by the Minister's assurance that the guidelines will be sent to local authorities before Whitsun this year. Is that a categorical assurance?
    However, I remind the Minister that I am concerned about the paragraph to which I referred. Are the local authorities required to inform the Secretary of State that they have received the guidelines and that they are proceeding to implement them? Will local authorities be allowed a period before they regard the guidance as absolute in their treatment of these situations?
    I understand that it has been the Government's intention for more than three years—even though the present Secretary of State has significantly failed to implement it—that local authorities should not be able to draw out these guidelines. Local authorities should guarantee that they will implement them.
    Mr. Ashby: I congratulate the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson) on tabling her amendment in Committee, and on bringing it to the attention of the House. It resulted in a flurry of activity, which has produced some guidelines. The guidelines are not just good, they are excellent, and I am grateful for them. It is my experience in local government that local authorities will adhere to them, so that does not worry me at all.
    However, I am worried about a number of things. We have withdrawn the transference of a lease in an assured tenancy that is in the private sector. I hate labels, but it seems to me that we are all looking for labels—especially the gutter press, the tabloids, which are always happy to talk about gay rights, and gay this and that. However, we are not only talking about gay relationships. If the gutter press wants to look for labels, perhaps it ought to think more about care in the community, about carers, and about carers who have been carers for a long time.
    People start as carers by leaving their home and leaving it empty for a number of months. The work continues, and a year may stretch into two years, so they give up their previous home and live with the person for whom they are caring. Because the person is being cared for, they may survive for 10 years or more. They develop a close relationship. When the person dies, the carer is left bereft and saddened by the loss of what is effectively a partner—they might be the same sex—and they are also left homeless.
    I heard about such a case on a radio programme I took part in recently. The person's name was Mark—I shall not give his full name. Mark was in a relationship with a
    988
    man for 30 years. He had the most tremendous accident 12 years ago that left him a quadriplegic. For 10 years, he was cared for as a total quadriplegic. He died in 1994. Mark has lost the person for whom he cared—his partner—and he is now losing his home. Anyone who heard him speak could not be unaffected. I know that the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford) heard the radio programme. He could not be unaffected, as I was not unaffected, by the depth of feeling expressed by this person—the bereavement and the loss, and the prospect of losing the home that they had shared for 30 years. I was very moved by it.
    I think that people in this situation have had a pretty raw deal from Governments—not from our Government—over many years. They are judged by moral standards rather than factual standards. We hold ourselves up as great moralists, and we think that we should be able to judge people in this way—I do not know why we should; I certainly do not. I suppose, after the judgement of the jury in my libel action, I cannot. Putting that aside, I will still speak out. I do not care a bit about the press; it can say and do what it likes in tomorrow's papers; I do not care a damn about it.
    I ask the Minister to look at a Bill that deals with landlords and tenants to see whether this amendment—an amendment giving fairness, justice and equal opportunity—cannot be put into it. The Conservative party has always stood for fairness and for justice. The Secretary of State said that, if there is one unfairness, it is one too many for him. I agree—one injustice is one too many.
    I think we are being unfair—and ours is the party that stands for fairness and justice. I hope that, when we deal with a landlord and tenant Bill—not a social housing Bill, such as this Bill—we can have some sensible measures to deal with the real world in which we live, not a make-believe world. Perhaps we could reinstate some of the measures that the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate so properly put forward, so that the Bill covers assured tenancies as well as social housing.
    I am content that we have achieved this much on social housing, and I rest on that. I hope that the Minister and his Department can see that, in future, we will have to go for fairness and for justice. This is not only a homosexual matter—it covers carers, maiden sisters, bachelor brothers and all sorts of relationships. It is a comprehensive issue—it does not relate only to the one issue that the tabloid press wants to raise.
    Mr. Chris Davies: I welcome the Minister's approach to this matter—his attitude is sympathetic and sensitive—but his proposals about the issue of guidelines are hardly the same as clarifying the situation and giving the approach that will take the force of law.
    Local authorities do prepare their own allocation policies; there is a great deal of variance in them, and different interpretations will be applied in different situations. It is suggested that the guidelines will provide that local authorities will wish to be assured of the likely continuance of such a partnership where no joint tenancy has been established, and assured that there are no adverse implications from the joint tenancy for good use of authorities' housing stock or for authorities' ability to continue to provide for housing need.
    A homophobic authority could drive a coach and horses through such guidelines, and it would be very difficult for the partner of a tenant who had died to prove to sceptical

    989
    housing officers, backed up by a local authority unsympathetic to such problems, that the partnership would have been likely to continue. Such guidelines are not strong enough to deal with the problems that, I acknowledge, the Minister understands, and which were well expressed by the hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire (Mr. Ashby).
    8.30 pm
    Is there not a conflict with part VI of the Bill? Perhaps the Minister will explain. I understand that part VI says that, unless one is a tenant, one will be housed only from the register. Surely the guidelines suggest that the provisions in part VI would be overtaken by the words of a Department of the Environment circular.
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: I stand in solidarity with my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire (Mr. Ashby), who I believe spoke for many in the House tonight. I welcome what my hon. Friend the Minister has said about the guidance, and welcome the time scale he offered to the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson). My interest in this matter comes from those who may be in the category of elderly orphans—people who have looked after their parents without moving away from home or who may have moved back—and companions, as well as those who may have had a different type of relationship.
    I think that the House is doing well tonight.
    Mr. Raynsford: I shall briefly raise two points arising from the Minister's comments. First, he was slightly disingenuous when he said that it was necessary to vote down the amendment that was made in Committee, because it would be inconsistent without a similar provision applying to secure tenancies. The truth is that the Government themselves chose to vote down the parallel amendment that was moved to ensure consistency between secure tenancies on one side and assured tenancies in the private sector, so the problem is entirely of their own making.
    Secondly, the reason that there has been considerable scepticism about the pledge of new guidance on this issue is partly to do with the timetable. I remind the Minister that it is now more than three years since Lord Strathclyde gave a written answer, confirming that the Government intended "shortly" to issue guidance on the subject. The Government have been a very long time indeed moving on this, so we welcome the assurance that there will be guidance before Whitsun.
    I am also anxious about the contents of the guidance. Without having it before us, I do not wish to draw firm conclusions, but there is a fear that the guidance will not give the same legal rights and the same reassurance.
    Mr. Michael Brown: My hon. Friend the Minister was kind enough to meet my right hon. Friend the Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke), my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Mrs. Currie) and me last week. We have not been easily satisfied with the guidance. I can assure the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford) that the guideline that it is proposed to publish is pretty tough, and I am reasonably satisfied that it meets his points.
    Mr. Raynsford: I am pleased to hear that from the hon. Gentleman, who I know has been especially worried
    990
    about that issue and has spoken forcefully about it in the House. Our scepticism is partly based on the fact that we have not seen the guidance; I am delighted to know that he and some of his hon. Friends have, but we have not. Our scepticism is also partly to do with the difference between guidance and statutory rights. In the absence of a statutory backing, there will be a differential position for same-sex partners as against others; there is an issue of principle there.
    Nevertheless, some progress is being made. The Minister has guaranteed that guidance will be issued, so this long fight for justice is at least moving in the right direction. We shall remain very sceptical indeed until we have seen positive and concrete results from what the Minister proposes.
    Mr. Curry: Short of carving it on the Dispatch Box, I cannot do more than repeat that we shall issue guidance before Whitsuntide. It will be implemented by the local authorities immediately. I am not holding it back until we issue a general guidance flowing from the Housing Bill.
    There is nothing sinister about the idea of suitable alternative accommodation. I had in mind the position when someone wished to move to smaller accommodation—easier to heat, with lower costs—which sometimes happens when someone's partner is deceased. Local authorities will be sensible about that. It seeks to embrace different circumstances.
    I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire (Mr. Ashby) for pointing out that this has a wide application in many circumstances. My hon. Friends the Members for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) and for South Derbyshire (Mrs. Currie) have pressed me on this, as they will acknowledge. I hope that they feel that we have moved sensibly to deal with people in those circumstances, irrespective of what their sexuality happens to be or the specific circumstances in which they find themselves.
    I am not interested in categorising certain people; I am interested in trying to deal with the position that exists, and doing so satisfactorily and fairly, in a way that is seen to be humane by the local authorities. We shall ensure that the guidance is implemented in that way.
    Amendment agreed to.

  Schedule 9

    CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS
    Amendments made: No. 146, in page 149, line 32 after 'of' insert 'Part I of'.
    No. 21, in page 151, line 38, leave out from beginning to 'subsection' in line 39 and insert 'In'.
    No. 22, in line 39, leave out from '(3) (d) (i), ' to end of line 40.
    No. 23, in line 41, after 'inserted' insert 'at the end'.—[Mr. McLoughlin.]

  Clause 94

    COLLECTIVE ENFRANCHISEMENT: EXCLUDED PREMISES
    Mr. Gummer: I beg to move amendment No. 60B, in page 61, leave out lines 21 to 23.

    991
    The amendment would delete clause 94. That clause was successfully moved by the Opposition; it would raise the limit for possible enfranchisement of blocks of flats from 10 per cent. commercial use to 25 per cent. I know that there are significant anxieties about that. I think we have mitigated them considerably by the changes that we have already made, in the form of the management improvements that the House has been pleased to support.
    There should be a balance between the rights and the opportunities of the leaseholders and the question of commercial premises. Commercial premises—which are, in a mansion block, the bottom of the block—often provide great difficulty. If they are very successful, the price of the leasehold enfranchisement is so great that it is especially difficult for people to enfranchise. Most of them are not like that. They are often the sort of shops in which it is quite difficult to create a really decent retail environment. I am very keen on encouraging people to do more for these shops and improve them. I am therefore especially concerned about this matter.
    I shall give two possible examples of what would happen if the 10 per cent. limit were raised. In the first example, the shops are very prosperous and expanding their trade. The residential leaseholders would have to pay a very high price to buy the freehold interest; in most cases, they would be unable to afford it, so raising the limit would have no effect. In the second example, the retail businesses are not doing so well and are struggling to keep afloat. The price would be more reasonable for the residential leaseholders, but enfranchisement might affect the viability of the marginal businesses and, on some occasions, drive it over the edge.
    I am trying very hard to reinvigorate our city centres and groups of shops. I believe that it would be a mistake to increase the limit, and that it would strike against the idea of reinvigoration. I hope that the House will agree that we got it right in 1993 in setting the proportion at 10 per cent. and that we should not be contemplating raising it now. I believe that the damage that would be done to shops that were not very profitable would not be outweighed by those who would enfranchise successfully. When the shops were profitable, people would find it difficult to pay the leasehold price and they would be left in the position that they are in now. I hope that the House will agree that it is not a sensible way forward.
    Mr. Raynsford: We have heard from the Secretary of State the same catalogue that he gave earlier this evening denying leaseholders the opportunity to enfranchise by simply proposing to reverse the gains that were made in Committee earlier this month.
    I remind the Secretary of State that the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 puts the threshold for non-residential accommodation at 50 per cent. In 1992–93, the hon. Member for Kensington (Mr. Fishburn) forecast incorrectly that it would be accepted at 20 per cent. He was conned by Ministers who persuaded him, after he had given a forceful speech in favour of increasing the percentage, that they would look sympathetically at his proposals. They conned the hon. Gentleman then in the same way as the Government have conned leaseholders today.
    We deplore the way in which the Government are once again betraying leaseholders' interests through the amendment and trying to destroy the good work that was
    992
    done in Committee. Ministers might like to reflect on comments of the Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration at the end of the Committee, when he described it as a very constructive Committee which reflected well on the British parliamentary system. It can hardly reflect well on the British parliamentary system if the Government seek to reverse on the Floor of the House amendment after amendment that was passed in Committee.
    This is a discreditable move by the Government for which they will pay. Many leaseholders who live in blocks of flats that contain a small element of non-residential accommodation will be denied the opportunity to buy their freeholds. They will know that the Government have taken that right from them, and they will blame the Government at the next general election for that denial of their rights.
    Amendment agreed to.

  Clause 95
    ENFRANCHISEMENT AND COLLECTIVE ENFRANCHISEMENT: QUALIFYING TENANTS
    Amendment made: No. 152, in page 61, leave out lines 24 to 34.—[Mr. McLoughlin.]
  New schedule 2
    Low RENT TEST: EXTENSION OF RIGHTS

      Right to enfranchisement
      1. In the Leasehold Reform Act 1967, after section 1A there shall be inserted—
      "Additional right to enfranchisement only in case of houses whose rent exceeds applicable limit under section 4
      1AA.—(1) Where—

      (a) section 1(1) above would apply in the case of the tenant of a house but for the fact that the tenancy is not a tenancy at a low rent, and

      (b) the tenancy falls within subsection (2) below and is not an excluded tenancy,

      this Part of this Act shall have effect to confer on the tenant the same right to acquire the freehold of the house and premises as would be conferred by section 1(1) above if it were a tenancy at a low rent.
      (2) A tenancy falls within this subsection if—

      (a) it is granted for a term of years certain exceeding fifty years, whether or not it is (or may become) terminable before the end of that term by notice given by or to the tenant or by re-entry, forfeiture or otherwise,

      (b) it is for a term fixed by law under a grant with a covenant or obligation for perpetual renewal, unless it is a tenancy by sub-demise from one which is not a tenancy which falls within this subsection,

      (c) it is a tenancy taking effect under section 149(6) of the Law of Property Act 1925 (leases terminable after a death or marriage), or

      (d) it is a tenancy which—

      (i) is or has been granted for a term of years certain not exceeding fifty years, but with a covenant or obligation for renewal without payment of a premium (but not for perpetual renewal), and

      (ii) is or has been once or more renewed so as to bring to more than fifty years the total of the terms granted (including any interval between the end of a tenancy and the grant of a renewal).

      993
      (3) A tenancy is an excluded tenancy for the purposes of subsection (1) above if—

      (a) the house which the tenant occupies under the tenancy is in an area designated for the purposes of this provision as a rural area by order made by the Secretary of State,

      (b) the freehold of that house is owned together with adjoining land which is not occupied for residential purposes, and

      (c) the tenancy was granted on or before the day on which section [Low rent test: extension of rights] of the Housing Act 1996 comes into force.

      (4) Where this Part of this Act applies as if there were a single tenancy of property comprised in two or more separate tenancies, then, if each of the separate tenancies falls within subsection (2) above, this section shall apply as if the single tenancy did so.
      (5) The power to make an order under subsection (3) above shall be exercisable by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament."
      2.—(1) In consequence of paragraph 1 above, the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 shall be amended as follows.
      (2) In section 1(3A) (b) (extension of rights not to apply to existing lettings by charitable housing trusts), after "1A" there shall be inserted ", 1AA".
      (3) In section 3(3) (provision for aggregation of successive tenancies), after "this Part of this Act" there shall be inserted ", except section 1AA, ".
      (4) In section 9(1C) (price payable by tenant on enfranchisement by virtue of section 1A or 1B), after "1A" there shall be inserted 1AA".
      (5) In section 9A(1) (compensation payable where right to enfranchisement arises by virtue of section 1A or 1B), after "1A" there shall be inserted ", 1AA".
      (6) In section 32A(1)(b) (extensions to right to enfranchisement not to apply in relation to existing tenancies of property transferred for public benefit), at the end there shall be inserted "or if section 1AA above were not in force".
      (7) In section 37(4) (treatment for the purposes of Part I of tenancy granted to continue as a periodical tenancy after the expiration of a term of years certain), after "this Part of this Act" there shall be inserted ", except section 1AA,".
      (8) In Part II of Schedule 3 (procedural provisions), in paragraph 6 (which makes provision about the contents of a tenant's notice under Part I), after sub-paragraph (1) there shall be inserted—

      "(1A) Where the tenant gives the notice by virtue of section 1AA of this Act, sub-paragraph (1) above shall have effect with the substitution for paragraph (b) of—

      "(b) such particulars of the tenancy as serve to identify the instrument creating the tenancy and show that the tenancy is one in relation to which section 1AA(1) of this Act has effect to confer a right to acquire the freehold of the house and premises;"."

      (9) In that Part of that Schedule, in paragraph 7(4) (admission in landlord's notice of tenant's right to have freehold to be binding on landlord, so far as relating to matters mentioned in section 1(1) (a) and (b)), for "mentioned in section 1(1) (a) and (b) of this Act" there shall be substituted "relevant to the existence of that right".

      Right to collective enfranchisement
      3.—(1) Chapter I of Part I of the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 (collective enfranchisement in case of tenants of flats) shall be amended as follows.
      (2) Section 5 (qualifying tenants) shall be amended as follows—

      (a) in subsection (1) (which defines a qualifying tenant as a tenant of a flat under a long lease at a low rent), for "at a low rent" there shall be substituted "which is at a low rent or for a particularly long term", and

      994

      (b) in subsection (2)(c) (which excludes from the definition a tenant under a lease granted in breach of the terms of a superior lease which is not a long lease at a low rent), after "rent" there shall be inserted "or for a particularly long term".

      (3) After section 8 there shall be inserted—

      "Meaning of "particularly long term"
      8A.—(1) For the purposes of this Chapter a long lease is for a particularly long term if—

      (a) it is granted for a term of years certain exceeding 50 years, whether or not it is (or may become) terminable before the end of that term by notice given by or to the tenant or by re-entry, forfeiture or otherwise,

      (b) it is for a term fixed by law under a grant with a covenant or obligation for perpetual renewal (other than a lease by sub-demise from one which is not for a particularly long term),

      (c) it takes effect under section 149(6) of the Law of Property Act 1925 (leases terminable after a death or marriage), or

      (d) it is a lease which—

      (i) is or has been granted for a term of years certain not exceeding 50 years, but with a covenant or obligation for renewal without payment of a premium (but not for perpetual renewal), and

      (ii) is or has been renewed on one or more occasions so as to bring to more than 50 years the total of the terms granted (including any interval between the end of a lease and the grant of a renewal).

      (2) A long lease which does not fall within subsection (1) above shall nonetheless be treated for the purposes of this Chapter as being for a particularly long term if it is a long lease by virtue of paragraph (c) or (d) of section 7(1).
      (3) Where this Chapter applies as if there were a single lease of property comprised in two or more separate leases, then, if each of the separate leases is for a particularly long term, this Chapter shall apply as if the single lease were for such a term."
      (4) In section 13(3)(e) (particulars to be included in initial notice which relevant to whether person a qualifying tenant), in sub-paragraph (ii), for "a lease at a low rent" there shall be substituted "at a low rent or for a particularly long term".

      Right to new lease
      4.—(1) Chapter II of that Part (individual right of tenant of flat to acquire new lease) shall be amended as follows.
      (2) In section 39(3) (provisions of Chapter I which apply for the purposes of Chapter II), at the end of paragraph (c) there shall be inserted ", and
      (d) section 8A,".
      (3) In section 42(3) (particulars to be included in notice by qualifying tenant of claim to exercise right), in paragraph (b)(iii), there shall be inserted at the end "or, in accordance with section 8A (as that section so applies), a lease for a particularly long term".
      5.—(1) In Chapter VII of that Part (general), section 94 (Crown land) shall be amended as follows.
      (2) In subsection (3) (disapplication of restriction imposed by section 3(2) of the Crown Estate Act 1961 on term for which lease may be granted by Crown Estate Commissioners), in paragraph (a), for "at a low rent" there shall be substituted "which is at a low rent or for a particularly long term".
      (3) In subsection (4) (power to shadow statutory rights), for "at a low rent" there shall be substituted "which is at a low rent or for a particularly long term".
      (4) For subsection (12) there shall be substituted—
      "(12) For the purposes of this section "long lease which is at a low rent or for a particularly long term" shall be construed in accordance with sections 7. 8 and 8A.".'—[Mr. Gummer.]

      Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

  New schedule 1
    TEXT OF PART II OF THE LANDLORD AND TENANT ACT 1987, AS AMENDED
      PART II
        APPOINTMENT OF MANAGERS BY LEASEHOLD VALUATION TRIBUNAL

          Tenant's right to apply to tribunal for appointment of manager
          21.—(1) The tenant of a flat contained in any premises to which this Part applies may, subject to the following provisions of this Part, apply to a leasehold valuation tribunal for an order under section 24 appointing a manager to act in relation to those premises.
          (2) Subject to subsection (3), this Part applies to premises consisting of the whole or part of a building if the building or part contains two or more flats.
          (3) This Part does not apply to any such premises at a time when—

          (a) the interest of the landlord in the premises is held by an exempt landlord or a resident landlord, or

          (b) the premises are included within the functional land of any charity.

          (4) An application for an order under section 24 may be made—

          (a) jointly by tenants of two or more flats if they are each entitled to make such an application by virtue of this section, and

          (b) in respect of two or more premises to which this Part applies;

          and, in relation to any such joint application as is mentioned in paragraph (a), references in this Part to a single tenant shall be construed accordingly.
          (5) Where the tenancy of a flat contained in any such premises is held by joint tenants, an application for an order under section 24 in respect of those premises may be made by any one or more of those tenants.
          (6) An application to the court for it to exercise in relation to any premises any jurisdiction to appoint a receiver or manager shall not be made by a tenant (in his capacity as such) in any circumstances in which an application could be made by him for an order under section 24 appointing a manager to act in relation to those premises.
          (7) References in this Part to a tenant do not include references to a tenant under a tenancy to which Part II of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 applies.

          Preliminary notice by tenant
          22.—(1) Before an application for an order under section 24 is made in respect of any premises to which this Part applies by a tenant of a flat contained in those premises, a notice under this section must (subject to subsection (3)) be served on the landlord by the tenant.
          (2) A notice under this section must—

          (a) specify the tenant's name, the address of his flat and an address in England and Wales (which may be the address of his flat) at which the landlord may serve notices, including notices in proceedings, on him in connection with this Part;

          (b) state that the tenant intends to make an application for an order under section 24 to be made by a leasehold valuation tribunal in respect of such premises to which this Part applies as are specified in the notice, but (if
          996
          paragraph (d) is applicable) that he will not do so if the landlord complies with the requirement specified in pursuance of that paragraph;

          (c) specify the grounds on which the tribunal would be asked to make such an order and the matters that would be relied on by the tenant for the purpose of establishing those grounds;

          (d) where those matters are capable of being remedied by the landlord, require the landlord, within such reasonable period as is specified in the notice, to take such steps for the purpose of remedying them as are so specified; and

          (e) contain such information (if any) as the Secretary of State may by regulations prescribe.

          (3) A leasehold valuation tribunal may (whether on the hearing of an application for an order under section 24 or not) by order dispense with the requirement to serve a notice under this section in a case where it is satisfied that it would not be reasonably practicable to serve such a notice on the landlord, but the tribunal may, when doing so, direct that such other notices are served, or such other steps are taken, as it thinks fit.
          (4) In a case where—

          (a) a notice under this section has been served on the landlord, and

          (b) his interest in the premises specified in pursuance of subsection (2)(b) is subject to a mortgage,

          the landlord shall, as soon as is reasonably practicable after receiving the notice, serve on the mortgagee a copy of the notice.

          Application to tribunal for appointment of manager
          23.—(1) No application for an order under section 24 shall be made to a leasehold valuation tribunal unless—

          (a) in a case where a notice has been served under section 22, either—

          (i) the period specified in pursuance of paragraph (d) of subsection (2) of that section has expired without the landlord having taken the steps that he was required to take in pursuance of that provision, or

          (ii) that paragraph was not applicable in the circumstances of the case; or

          (b) in a case where the requirement to serve such a notice has been dispensed with by an order under subsection (3) of that section, either—

          (i) any notices required to be served, and any other steps required to be taken, by virtue of the order have been served or (as the case may be) taken, or

          (ii) no direction was given by the tribunal when making the order.

          (2) Procedure regulations shall make provision—

          (a) for requiring notice of an application for an order under section 24 in respect of any premises to be served on such descriptions of persons as may be specified in the rules; and

          (b) for enabling persons served with any such notice to be joined as parties to the proceedings.

          Appointment of manager by the tribunal
          24.—(1) A leasehold valuation tribunal may, on an application for an order under this section, by order (whether interlocutory or final) appoint a manager to carry out in relation to any premises to which this Part applies—

          (a) such functions in connection with the management of the premises, or

          (b) such functions of a receiver,or both, as the tribunal thinks fit.

          (2) A leasehold valuation tribunal may only make an order under this section in the following circumstances, namely—

          (a) where the tribunal is satisfied—

          997

          (i) that the landlord either is in breach of any obligation owed by him to the tenant under his tenancy and relating to the management of the premises in question or any part of them or (in the case of an obligation dependent on notice) would be in breach of any such obligation but for the fact that it has not been reasonably practicable for the tenant to give him the appropriate notice, and

          (ii) that the circumstances by virtue of which he is (or would be) in breach of any such obligation are likely to continue, and

          (iii) that it is just and convenient to make the order in all the circumstances of the case;

          (ab) where the court is satisfied—

          (i) that unreasonable service charges have been made, or are proposed or likely to be made, and

          (ii) that it is just and convenient to make the order in all the circumstances of the case;

          (ac) where the court is satisfied—

          (i) that the landlord has failed to comply with any relevant provisions of a code of practice approved by the Secretary of State under section 87 of the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 (codes of management practice), and

          (ii) that it is just and convenient to make the order in all the circumstances of the case; or

          (b) where the court is satisfied that other circumstances exist which make it just and convenient for the order to be made.

          (2A) For the purposes of subsection (2)(ab) a service charge shall be taken to be unreasonable—

          (a) if the amount is unreasonable having regard to the items for which it is payable,

          (b) if the items for which it is payable are of an unnecessarily high standard, or

          (c) if the items for which it is payable are of an insufficient standard with the result that additional service charges are or may be incurred.

          In that provision and this subsection "service charge" means a service charge within the meaning of section 18(1) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, other than one excluded from that section by section 27 of that Act (rent of dwelling registered and not entered as variable).
          (3) The premises in respect of which an order is made under this section may, if the tribunal thinks fit, be either more or less extensive than the premises specified in the application on which the order is made.
          (4) An order under this section may make provision with respect to—

          such matters relating to the exercise by the manager of his functions under the order, and

          (b) such incidental or ancillary matters, as the tribunal thinks fit; and, on any subsequent application made for the purpose by the manager, the tribunal may give him directions with respect to any such matters.

          (5) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (4), an order under this section may provide—

          (a) for rights and liabilities arising under contracts to which the manager is not a party to become rights and liabilities of the manager;

          (b) for the manager to be entitled to prosecute claims in respect of causes of action (whether contractual or tortious) accruing before or after the date of his appointment;

          (c) for remuneration to be paid to the manager by the landlord, or by the tenants of the premises in respect of which the order is made or by all or any of those persons;

          998

          (d) for the manager's functions to be exercisable by him (subject to subsection (9)) either during a specified period or without limit of time.

          (6) Any such order may be granted subject to such conditions as the court thinks fit, and in particular its operation may be suspended on terms fixed by the tribunal.
          (7) In a case where an application for an order under this section was preceded by the service of a notice under section 22, the tribunal may, if it thinks fit, make such an order notwithstanding—

          (a) that any period specified in the notice in pursuance of subsection (2)(d) of that section was not a reasonable period, or

          (b) that the notice failed in any other respect to comply with any requirement contained in subsection (2) of that section or in any regulations applying to the notice under section 54(3)

          (8) The Land Charges Act 1972 and the Land Registration Act 1925 shall apply in relation to an order made under this section as they apply in relation to an order appointing a receiver or sequestrator of land
          (9) A leasehold valuation tribunal may, on the application of any person interested, vary or discharge (whether conditionally or unconditionally) an order made under this section; and if the order has been protected by an entry registered under the Land Charges Act 1972 or the Land Registration Act 1925, the tribunal may by order direct that the entry shall be cancelled.
          (10) An order made under this section shall not be discharged by a leasehold valuation tribunal by reason only that, by virtue of section 21(3), the premises in respect of which the order was made have ceased to be premises to which this Part applies
          (11) References in this section to the management of any premises include references to the repair, maintenance or insurance of those premises.

          Jurisdiction of leasehold valuation tribunal
          24A.—(1) The jurisdiction conferred by this Part on a leasehold valuation tribunal is exercisable by a rent assessment committee constituted in accordance with Schedule 10 to the Rent Act 1977 which when so constituted for the purposes of exercising any such jurisdiction shall be known as a leasehold valuation tribunal.
          (2) The power to make regulations under section 74(1)(b) of the Rent Act 1977 (procedure of rent assessment committees) extends to prescribing the procedure to be followed in connection with any proceedings before a leasehold valuation tribunal under this Part.
          Such regulations are referred to in this Part as "procedure regulations"
          (3) Any order made by a leasehold valuation tribunal under this Part may, with the leave of the court, be enforced in the same way as an order of the county court.
          (4) No costs incurred by a party in connection with proceedings under this Part before a leasehold valuation tribunal shall be recoverable by order of any court.
          (5) Paragraphs 2, 3 and 7 of Schedule 22 to the Housing Act 1980 (supplementary provisions relating to leasehold valuation tribunals: appeals and provision of information) apply to a leasehold valuation tribunal constituted for the purposes of this section.
          (6) On an appeal to the Lands Tribunal from a decision of a leasehold valuation tribunal under this Part—

          (a) the Lands Tribunal may exercise any power available to the leasehold valuation tribunal in relation to the original matter, and

          (b) an order of the Lands Tribunal may be enforced in the same way as an order of the leasehold valuation tribunal.

          Leasehold valuation tribunal: applications and fees
          24B.—(1) The Secretary of State may make provision by order as to the form of, or the particulars to be contained in, an application made to a leasehold valuation tribunal under this Part.
          (2) The Secretary of State may make provision by order—

          (a) requiring the payment of fees in respect of any such application, or in respect of any proceedings before, a leasehold valuation tribunal under this Part; and

          (b) empowering a leasehold valuation tribunal to require a party to proceedings before it to reimburse any other party the amount of any fees paid by him.

          (3) The fees payable shall be such as may be specified in or determined in accordance with the order; and the order shall be framed with a view to securing that taking one year with another the amount of the fees charged is sufficient to meet the reasonable cost of providing the service to which they relate.
          (4) An order under this section may make different provision for different cases or classes of case or for different areas.
          (5) An order may, in particular, provide for the reduction or waiver of fees by reference to the financial resources of the party by whom they are to be paid or met.
          Any such order may apply, subject to such modifications as may be specified in the order, any other statutory means-testing regime as it has effect from time to time.
          (6) An order under this section shall be made by statutory instrument which, unless the order contains only such provision as is mentioned in subsection (1), shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.".'.—[Mr. Gummer.]
          Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

      Schedule 10

        ADMINISTRATION OF HOUSING BENEFIT, &C
        Mr. Betts: I beg to move amendment No. 143, in page 159, line 24, at end insert—
        '(4A) For subsection (8) substitute—
        "(8) An authority shall disregard, in determining a person's income (whether he is the occupier of a dwelling or any other person whose income falls to be aggregated with that of the occupier of a dwelling), the whole of any war disablement pension or war widows pension payable to that person.
        (8A) An authority may modify the housing benefit scheme administered by the authority to such an extent as may be prescribed and any such modification may be adopted by resolution of the authority.".'.
        Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): With this, it will be convenient to discuss also the following amendments: No. 144, in page 160, line 2, at end insert—
        '(lA) For subsection (6) substitute—
        "(6) An authority shall disregard, in determining a person's income (whether he is the occupier of a dwelling or any other person whose income falls to be aggregated with that of the occupier of a dwelling), the whole of any war disablement pension or war widows pension payable to that person.
        (6A) An authority may modify the council tax benefit scheme administered by the authority to such an extent as may be prescribed and any such modification may be adopted by resolution of the authority.".'.
        No. 145, in page 160, line 2, at end insert—
        1000
        '(1B) In subsection (7), for the words "(6)(a) ", there shall be substituted the words "(6) and (6A)".'.
        Mr. Betts: The amendments address a problem in the current legislation concerning the disregard of war pensions. An injustice is being perpetrated on many war pensioners and their widows up and down the country.
        At present, the first £10 of any war disablement pension or war widow's pension is disregarded mandatorily in the benefit calculations of local authorities for both housing and council tax purposes. Local authorities then have the discretion to extend the disregard to the maximum total pension. In doing so, they must pay for any additional disregard out of their resources.
        I do not think that it is fair to complain that some local councils choose not to extend the disregard. After all, it is the Government who lay down the national benefit guidelines. It is they who determine what is included mandatorily in the benefit policies applied by local authorities and it is the Government who have chosen not to extend the disregard to all pensions. The Government decided that the mandatory allowance should be only £10.
        Because of the local structure, local authorities must weigh the cost of any additional disregard against total expenditure on other services—given that they are almost universally capped by central Government—and against the cost of extending the benefit system to any other case of hardship. I believe that it is an anomaly that the only extension of disregard in the benefit system that is incorporated in legislation applies to war disablement pensions and war widows' pensions. That is the only issue mentioned in addition to the statutory scheme, where local authorities have the right to extend the statutory scheme and to pay for the extension out of their resources.
        The issue is very simple. We examined the matter in Committee, but it is important to raise it again in the House. We shall continue to raise it until either we persuade the Government to change the legislation or there is a new Government.
        8.45 pm
        Mr. Peter L. Pike: My hon. Friend will recognise that the councils that have chosen to include war pensions in the disregard face extreme financial difficulties. We should recognise our debt to the people who served this country in the world wars and accept the principle espoused in the amendments.
        Mr. Betts: My hon. Friend is absolutely right: it is a national issue. War pensions are paid to ex-service men and their widows in recognition of the service that they gave to the whole country. People did not fight in wars for Sheffield, Burnley or for any other city: they fought for our country. As such, they receive a national pension which should be disregarded as part of the national benefit scheme. The cost should be met by the nation out of national taxation. That is the principle.
        It is wrong that people who have fought in a war for their country and who receive a disability pension should be treated differently from others who fought alongside them but who come from a different part of the country. That is an unjustifiable anomaly. I move the amendment in an attempt to ensure that there is coverage under a national scheme, that costs are borne nationally and that all pensioners, wherever they live, are treated in the same way.

        1001
        The Government said in Committee that they could not meet the £75 million cost. However, when I inquired again recently, the cost had reduced to £60 million. We owe a debt to those who fought for our country. Surely we can manage to find £60 million in order to rectify an anomaly and to remove a gross injustice perpetrated on many people who do not receive the full benefit of the pension that they earned in fighting for their country.
        Mr. Simon Hughes: I support the amendment moved by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts). He will know that there has been a succession of campaigns on the issue. I have introduced two ten-minute Bills that were supported on both sides of the House and I have also led an all-party delegation to the Department. Amendments were tabled in the past and there is an early-day motion on the subject which has been signed by about 140 Members of Parliament.
        I do not want to duplicate the hon. Gentleman's comments, but, according to my figures, 60 per cent. of local authorities currently operate the full disregard. Some 79 per cent. of local authorities in England and Wales operate a total disregard on war disability and war widows' pensions. The reality is not as the Government have stated. The Government's figures are misleading: they overestimate the numbers, as they have not caught up with all the responses from local authorities. I am informed that only 4 per cent. of authorities—18 in total—refuse to give any further concessions.
        I make two more points. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct: simply by accident of residence—a factor over which people may have no control—pensioners may be treated entirely differently. The right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sir J. Molyneaux) has been a strong advocate in this place of the war pensions issue. People receive war pensions as a reward or recompense for national service. It is not a local authority matter; it is a Government matter and a state matter. Therefore, it should be treated in a similar way throughout the United Kingdom. The Royal British Legion has advised some war pensioners not to claim their entitlement to war pension, as it would be financially disadvantageous to them.
        We are not satisfied that the Government understand that equity is worth far more than relatively small sums of public money. I hope that the Minister will respond positively to the amendment. If he does not, a diminishing number of those affected will consider the Government to be unnecessarily inflexible. Having celebrated VE day, VJ day and all the other commemorations, we should now be generous. The Government waste money on many things; this should not be one of them. I hope that they respond positively to the amendment.
        The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Roger Evans): The Government recognise that war disabled and war widows are a special case. I should stress that all war pensions and the wide ranges of associated allowances that are paid on top of the basic war pension are now completely tax free. Those pensions and allowances are paid at a much higher rate compared with their social security counterparts.
        1002
        We are debating not whether those pensions and allowances should be tax free but whether, regardless of their means, those who enjoy tax-free pensions and allowances should also be eligible for income-related benefits. The Government believe that there should be a £10 mandatory disregard in respect of housing benefit and council tax benefit, but the provision goes further than the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts) suggests: 80 per cent. of war widows also receive the pre-1973 allowance of £51.71 a week. That is also a mandatory disregard for the purposes of housing benefit and council tax.
        Although considerable generosity is being shown, the hon. Member for Attercliffe is suggesting that, in respect of income-related benefits that are designed to help those most in need, a total disregard of all such income should be introduced nationally. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford) laughs. I take that to be in dissent, but let me give him an example that is rather surprising in terms of social security. It is a example of the anomalies that would arise if the hon. Member for Attercliffe succeeded in his campaign.
        A 75-year-old war widow may have a total weekly income made up of two parts, the first of which is her tax-free war widow's pension of a little over £148 a week. She may also have a second income comprising her state retirement pension or private means of up to £70 a week. Therefore, she would have a total income of £220 a week, get her rent paid by housing benefit and her council tax paid in full. In social security terms, that would be extraordinarily generous and we suggest that it would be going too far.
        At present, local authorities have discretion as to whether to meet those costs. Some exercise it and some do not. The hon. Member for Attercliffe said bluntly that he wanted it paid centrally. His amendments are defective, however. They do not achieve that. If they were passed, their only effect would be to require Sheffield city council to meet those costs when it has chosen not to do so. On that basis, I cannot believe that the hon. Gentleman will wish to press the amendments.
        Sir James Molyneaux: I do not dispute the generosity of present and past Governments in this matter, but as we recently discussed issuing fairly stringent guidelines to local authorities, would it not be possible to issue similar guidelines to the defaulting councils, many of which, unfortunately, are dominated by the same party?
        Mr. Evans: The right hon. Gentleman is correct. It is for local authorities to determine such matters and for their electors to form a judgment. A national scheme would involve extra public expenditure. According to our lowest estimate, it would cost an extra £30 million a year in housing benefit and an extra £10 million in council tax benefit. Local authority returns suggest that it could cost as much as £60 million a year. That is a considerable sum, given that it would be in addition to the £20 million already incurred through mandatory disregards.
        Mr. Pike: Does the Minister not understand that those of us who are arguing the case and the nation believe that we owe such people the greatest possible debt for our freedom and our society and that is why we support the amendment?
        Mr. Evans: Of course we owe them everything, but it is for local authorities to decide how much weight to attach to that debt.
        I cannot accept the amendment. I suggest that it is technically defective and that, given the totality of existing provision, it is reasonable in all the circumstances.
        Mr. Betts: I was interested to hear the Minister's explanations. We shall send a copy of his speech to the Royal British Legion, whose members will be interested in the Government's attitude in these matters.
        The Minister claimed that the amendment was technically defective. I was surprised that his colleagues did not make that assessment in Committee. I also refer him to the comments of the Secretary of State in another Committee that was considering the same issues. He said that Committees and the Government should not hide behind technicalities on matters of principle, but should face up to them.
        Mr. Roy Beggs: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it might be necessary to embarrass those councils by listing them? That might encourage them to provide the same benefits as 60 per cent. of councils are affording in due respect to the war service of their residents.
        Mr. Betts: The Royal British Legion has already listed councils according to their response on this issue. The purpose of the amendment is that individual councils should not be creating a patchwork quilt of policy across the country. It is a national issue that should be tackled by the Government and incorporated into a national benefits system.
        The Minister referred to technical deficiencies. In my view, his entire speech was deficient and some of his comments were disgraceful. He said that the Government had dealt with taxation issues by making war disability pensions and war widows' pensions tax exempt. That would benefit those on high incomes who receive a war disability pension or a war widow's pension, while those on lower incomes would have some of their benefit clawed back. So Government policies hit poorer war pensioners and widows.
        The Minister quoted the case of a war widow who received a war widow's pension of £148. He asked why she should have that pension disregarded. However, he then said that local authorities already had that discretion. If the Government do not believe that such a person should have her pension disregarded, why do they allow that discretion to operate as part of the current scheme? I do not accept the Government's arguments or their logic, but, because of time pressure, I shall ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
        The Government are wrong in principle. Their treatment of war pensioners is little short of disgraceful. It should be a national issue dealt with by central Government and paid for out of national taxation. We shall continue to support the campaign of the Royal British Legion until this Government—or a future Government—recognise it and put it into legislation. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
        Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 109

      NOTICE OF PROCEEDINGS FOR POSSESSION
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Gwilym Jones): I beg to move amendment No. 95, in page 70, line 34, at end insert—
      '( ) The notice shall also inform the tenant that if he needs help or advice about the notice, and what to do about it, he should take it immediately to a Citizens' Advice Bureau, a housing aid centre, a law centre or a solicitor.'.
      In Committee, Opposition Members proposed that the notice stating that the landlord is seeking possession should tell the tenant that he has a right to seek advice. Amendment No. 95 would require the notice to inform the tenant that if he wants advice he should ask a citizens advice bureau, a housing aid centre, a law centre or a solicitor. I believe the amendment to be more helpful than requiring the notice simply to inform the tenant that he has the right to seek advice, as it would instead tell him where he can go to obtain such advice.
      Amendment agreed to.
      9 pm

    Clause 110

      RIGHT TO REQUEST REVIEW OF DECISION TO SEEK POSSESSION
      Mr. Simon Hughes: I beg to move amendment No. 154, in page 70, line 36, leave out 'a' and insert 'an independent'.
      Madam Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also amendment No. 155, in page 70, leave out lines 40 to 44.
      Mr. Hughes: Amendments Nos. 154 and 155 would apply to the part of the Bill dealing with the conduct of tenants and introductory tenancies. The Bill, as currently drafted, provides that if possession proceedings are started under section 109, the tenant shall be told that he or she has a right
      "to request a review of the landlord's decision to seek an order for possession by serving a notice"
      Amendment No. 154 would change "a" review into "an independent" review and amendment No. 155 would delete clause 110(2), which as currently drafted provides that the review is carried out by the landlord
      "in such manner as it considers appropriate"
      The tenant must also be notified.
      The defect of the present system is that we would leave it to the landlord to carry out the review, but it is the landlord who is taking the possession proceedings. The landlord may also carry out the review in a way that it considers appropriate. That gives all the power and all the cards to the landlord and no power and none of the cards to the introductory tenant. All I ask is that we allow the review to be independent, for the protection of the tenant. I cannot believe that a reasonable landlord would object and, in equity, I hope that my amendments will be easily and readily accepted.
      Mr. Gwilym Jones: Amendments Nos. 154 and 155 seek to ensure that the review is independent of the local

      1005
      authority, although they do not specify who will carry out such a review. Authorities will seek to evict a tenant only when anti-social behaviour justifies such action. Clause 109(3) provides that the notice seeking possession spells out the reasons why the tenant is being asked to leave. He will then have 14 days to seek a review.
      We shall issue comprehensive guidance on introductory tenancies, to ensure that authorities have in place a fair and equitable system. The review procedure should clearly be carried out by an independent person or body within the council—not by anyone who was involved in the original decision to begin the eviction proceedings. I do not believe that an independent body could improve on that. Local authorities will have to have fair and rigorous procedures in place to ensure that tenants are not treated unfairly. As with all such matters, there is always the risk of judicial review of the local authorities' actions if they have not been exercised properly or reasonably. I do not believe that local authorities will take that risk.
      The issue is whether a tenant should be allowed to continue living in council accommodation and the best judge of that must be the authority itself.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: The Minister has made his case and the guidelines will doubtless be helpful, but he must accept that—from the point of view of the tenant—justice has not only to be done but to be seen to be done. If the landlord evicts a tenant, the fact that somebody else employed by the landlord will carry out a review is not persuasive.
      I must tell the Minister that people do not believe in the independence of a review behind closed doors. He has not said whether the review will be in public, whether there will be a time for people to put evidence to the review and whether the tenant may bring somebody with him to argue the case. Constituents regularly come to tell me that a review is to take place in four days, and that it will be carried out by another officer from the same department—a colleague of the person who made the original decision. That officer is therefore not entirely independent.
      The Minister's argument is not persuasive. Even with the guidelines that the Minister promised, the provision is supportive of landlords and not helpful to tenants. I do not feel able to seek leave to withdraw the amendment, and it would not be in the interests of tenants for me to do so. I hope that the Government will think again and ensure that the review is properly independent.
      The Minister said that I have not specified who should carry out the review. As the Minister will know, I have not specified anyone in the amendments in order to allow a greater opportunity for somebody to be designated. There are plenty of people available, and the Government regularly set up independent agencies. It is entirely possible for the review to be done by an independent agency. We must move away from the position in housing law in which the judge and the jury are the same body.
      Amendment negatived.

    Clause 113

      CASES WHERE THE TENANT IS A SUCCESSOR
      Mrs. Maddock: I beg to move amendment No. 41, in page 72, line 11, after 'proceedings) ', insert
      1006
      'or under section 15 of and Schedule 1(2)(e) to the Children Act 1989 (transfer of property in the interests of a child).'.
      Madam Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also the following amendments: No. 42, in clause 114, page 72, line 36, after 'proceedings) ', insert
      'or under section 15 of and Schedule 1(2)(e) to the Children Act 1989 (transfer of property in the interests of a child).'.
      No. 43, in clause 115, page 72, line 43, after 'proceedings) ', insert
      'or under section 15 of and Schedule 1(2)(e) to the Children Act 1989 (transfer of property in the interests of a child).'.
      Mrs. Maddock: The amendments are meant to be helpful, as they would ensure that the new provisions for introductory tenancies deal with both statutory provisions under which a family court might order transfer of the tenancy. The amendments make good an important drafting deficiency. Family courts have the power to order the transfer of tenancies under the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 and the Children Act 1989. The amendments will ensure that the Bill ties up with that legislation. In Committee, the Minister indicated that the omission might be the result of the powers in the 1989 Act being overlooked. The amendments give the Minister the opportunity to correct that error, and I press him to accept them in that spirit.
      Mr. Gwilym Jones: We are aware that provisions in the Children Act 1989 cut across the Bill's provisions relating to succession and transferred tenancies. We are in touch with other Departments to ascertain the consequential amendments required to tidy up the statute. We are willing to consider the three amendments in principle and will, where appropriate, introduce amendments in another place. With that assurance, I hope that the hon. Lady will be minded to withdraw amendment No. 41.
      Mrs. Maddock: I will convey the Minister's comments to my colleagues in another place, who will be pressing to ensure that my points are taken on board. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 118

      CONSULTATION ON MATTERS OF HOUSING MANAGEMENT
      Mr. Simon Hughes: I beg to move amendment No. 156, in page 73, line 31, leave out
      'it considers appropriate to enable'
      and insert 'will guarantee.'
      Madam Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also the following amendments: No. 157, in page 73, line 40, after 'arrangements', insert
      'and replies with a reasonable response to each and every representation made.'.
      No. 158, in page 74, line 25, at end insert—
      '(c) be given to all tenants affected.'.
      Mr. Hughes: Clause 118(2) states:
      "The authority or trust"—
      the landlord—
      "shall maintain such arrangements as it considers appropriate to enable those of its introductory tenants who are likely to be substantially affected by a relevant matter of housing management—

      (a) to be informed of the proposals of the authority or trust …

      (b) to make their views known"

      I want a guarantee that tenants
      "who are likely to be substantially affected"
      are informed. People often are not. The council may say that it has sent a notice or posted a letter, but often such communications never arrive. I am not so trusting of local authorities. My experience in Southwark has taught me to be untrusting often of Southwark council's housing department. I would be far more trusting if the law gave tenants a guarantee that they will be consulted—and if it can be proved that the council did not consult, it can be taken to task.
      Amendment No. 157 would give some teeth to subsection (2), which embodies a wonderful tradition of legislating by stating that local government
      "shall, before making a decision on the matter, consider any representations made to it in accordance with those arrangements."
      That can mean placing one piece of paper in front of a council officer, who considers it for one second before dismissing it. If one is really lucky, the matter might appear on an agenda and be nodded through in a meeting without formal consideration. The amendment would make certain that any representation is answered, and answered reasonably. Any tenant who says, "This is my view: you ought to run the show this way; you ought to do something different, " will know that his comments will be taken into account.
      Probably more pieces of paper from tenants have gone missing in Southwark council than in any other authority in the world. People are told, "Sorry, we cannot find the files. We cannot find the paperwork. We don't think that we received the document." Tenants go to the council day after day, sometimes week after week, to complain but nothing happens. We must give tenants the right to an answer. Democracy in housing management needs answers, and if there is to be equity as between tenants and landlords, tenants must have a right to them.
      Amendment No. 158 would ensure that the authority or trust publishes details of the arrangements that it makes under this section, that it publishes a copy of the documents and that a copy is given to all tenants affected. Yes, it can be perfectly proper to place the information in the council's principal office. Yes, it may be made available, on payment of a reasonable fee, to any member of the public. It is, however, important to ensure that it reaches the people affected. Although in that respect Labour-run Southwark council is better than it was, people are regularly not given information. Some people must have it put through their door and drawn to their attention. It is no good saying, "It is in the council office, " or, "You can come and see it, " or, "Get your friend to go along and pay 20p to get a copy." We must ensure that tenants are given the information.
      Democratic housing management, which, above all, is about the rights of tenants, requires that tenants are given information. That should be the duty of the landlord. My amendments simply seek to ensure that we give teeth and a bit of toughness to the proposal, to deal with
      1008
      authorities, which, like Southwark over many years, have often been poor at ensuring that tenants are given information to which they are entitled, and which we have legislated that tenants should have.
      Mr. Gwilym Jones: Amendment No. 156 would require local authorities to guarantee that their tenants are consulted on housing management matters. As the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) said, clause 118 already requires local authorities to maintain such arrangements as they feel appropriate to ensure that introductory tenants are consulted. The provision is based on the Housing Act 1985, which requires local authorities to consult their secure tenants on the same basis. I have no reason to suppose that the current system has not worked for both tenants and local authorities.
      Authorities are already required to consider any representation made during consultation, but amendment No. 157 would require them to reply to each and every representation. I am sure that local authorities will make every reasonable effort to reply.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: But they do not, so what is the sanction? How can tenants know that any representation that they make is considered properly and what the considered view is? I can assure the Minister that representations regularly disappear into a black hole or into thin air and tenants never hear anything from the council again.
      Mr. Jones: I am struck by the hon. Gentleman's regard for local democracy and accountability. He must have even more experience than I have of Labour and Liberal councillors.
      Amendment No. 158 would be a costly and wasteful exercise. Authorities are already required to make details of consultation arrangements available and can make a small charge should anybody want a copy. I cannot see that the hon. Gentleman's amendments would improve the situation, and I urge him not to pursue them.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: I am entirely unsatisfied. If the Minister thinks that all councils are the wonderful paragons of virtue that we legislate to make them, he has another think coming. Not all councils are as bad in their housing management as Southwark traditionally is, but I am afraid that it is not a happy story in many cases. I could bring in an army of tenants, who could fill the Gallery and Central Lobby. They would tell the Minister just how bad it is. Even now, under the so-called new management of Southwark, things have barely improved in that respect.
      I shall not withdraw the amendments. The Government can vote them down if they want to, but I sincerely hope that the Minister will not try to make party political points. We need good management by all councils, of whichever party. The rights of tenants must be looked after. I should have thought that it was in the Government's interest to do that.
      Amendment negatived

    Clause 123

      EXTENSION OF GROUND OF NUISANCE OR ANNOYANCE TO NEIGHBOURS, &C
      Mr. Curry: I beg to move amendment No. 96, in page 75, line 29, after 'of' insert'—(i)'
      Madam Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also Government amendments Nos. 97, 102, 103, 106 and 107.
      Mr. Curry: In Committee, Opposition Members tabled a number of amendments to try to strengthen local authorities' powers to deal with drug dealers. I undertook to examine which of those would make a further impact on the problem.
      As a result of that undertaking, I have introduced amendments Nos. 96 and 97, which will extend the scope of local authorities' powers by allowing eviction to take place where the tenant has been convicted of an arrestable offence in the locality of the dwelling. At the moment, the tenant must have used his or her home for the offence. I believe that this will be a particularly useful measure to deal with drug dealing cases where the traffic may well take place in the common parts of the estate rather than in a person's home.
      Amendments Nos. 106 and 107 replicate that provision for assured tenancies.
      Amendments Nos. 102 and 103 are consequential.
      Mr. Raynsford: The Minister has confirmed that the amendments were tabled in response to amendments tabled by the Opposition in Committee, which were specifically aimed to deal with the problem of people using their tenancies as a basis for drug dealing. We recommended that a conviction for a drugs-related offence committed in, or in the immediate vicinity of, a person's home should provide a mandatory ground for possession. Tenants throughout the country are extremely anxious about the damage caused to their communities by the behaviour of drug dealers and they want tough responses.
      9.15 pm
      I accept that the Government have brought back an amendment which goes some way towards doing what we want, but it could have unintended consequences. It refers only to tenants who are convicted of a criminal offence related to the area where they live. That could involve offences that are inherently anti-social, such as drug dealing, but it could equally involve an offence with no anti-social implications for the neighbourhood or to other tenants in the area. While no one would condone an offence committed from a council property, or indeed from any other property, I question whether the purpose for which we tabled the original amendment was to take double action against someone who has been convicted—quite properly—of an offence when that offence has caused no nuisance to that person's neighbours.
      Although we are pleased that the Government have responded, we are not satisfied that the amendment goes all the way, and we fear that there might be unforeseen consequences that we certainly did not intend. As we are glad that some progress has been made, however, we will support the amendment.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendment made: No. 97, in page 75, line 30, at end insert
      ', or
      (ii) an arrestable offence committed in, or in the locality of, the dwelling—house.'.—[Mr. Brandreth.]

    Clause 124

      NEW GROUND OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE: SECURE TENANCIES
      Mr. Gwilym Jones: I beg to move amendment No. 98, in page 75, line 37, leave out 'the violence of and insert
      'violence or threats of violence by'.
      Madam Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 99 to 101 and 108 to 112.
      Mr. Jones: The amendments take on board three suggestions made in Committee. Amendment No. 98 will make the domestic violence ground for possession available where a partner has left the home permanently where violence has been threatened, not just when violence has taken place. I believe that provision to be entirely justified, as the constant threat of violence over a sustained period will often lead to a partner fleeing the family home.
      Amendment No. 99 replaces the reference to violence or the threat of violence to a "child" with a reference to a "member of the family". That is a sensible widening of the scope of the provision to cover cases such as the example given in Committee of violence directed at an elderly mother-in-law, in circumstances in which it was reasonable for the wife to leave the dwelling with her mother because of violence on the part of her husband.
      Amendments Nos. 100 and 101 remove the requirement in paragraph (d) that the remaining partner should be under-occupying the family home. It was put to us in Committee that domestic violence alone should be a sufficient ground for eviction. We think that that is right, and that the clause as drafted is too restrictive because it requires the remaining partner to be over-accommodated.
      I commend the amendments to the House.
      Mr. Raynsford: The Opposition welcome the amendments, which, as the Minister said, emanated from issues raised by Opposition amendments in Committee. As he has said, they will make it easier to obtain possession in cases in which there has been a threat of violence rather than actual violence. Moreover, there will be no restriction on possession to cases in which there is under-occupation of the property. That is right and proper, and we welcome the amendments.
      Mrs. Maddock: As the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford) has said, we discussed the issues in detail in Committee. I am very pleased that the Minister has tabled these important amendments, which will affect many people who are likely to suffer violence and be unable to escape from it. They have my support, and that of my hon. Friends.
      Amendment agreed to
      Amendments made: No. 99, in page 76, line 1, leave out 'child' and insert' member of the family'.

      1011
      No. 100, in page 76, line 2, at end insert and'.
      No. 101, in page 76, line 4, leave out from 'return' to end of line 7.—[Mr. Brandreth]

    Clause 125

      PROCEEDINGS FOR POSSESSION OR TERMINATION
      Amendments made: No. 102, in page 76, line 28, leave out 'annoyance to neighbours, etc.' and insert' other anti-social behaviour'.
      No. 103, in page 77, line 46, leave out 'annoyance to neighbours, etc.' and insert' other anti-social behaviour'.
      No. 104, in page 78, line 9, leave out 'after subsection (3) insert' and insert
      '(grounds and orders for possession), for subsection (3) substitute—
      "(3) Where a notice under section 83 has been served on the tenant, the court shall not make such an order on any of those grounds above unless the ground is specified in the notice; but the grounds so specified may be altered or added to with the leave of the court.'.
      No. 105, in page 78, line 13, at end insert—
      '( ) In Schedule 2 to that Act, in Ground 16, after "notice of the proceedings for possession was served under section 83" insert" (or, where no such notice was served, the proceedings for possession were begun) ".'.—[Mr. Brandreth.]

    Clause 126

      EXTENSION OF GROUND OF NUISANCE OR ANNOYANCE TO ADJOINING OCCUPIERS &C
      Amendments made: No. 106, in page 78, line 22, after of insert—(i) '.
      No. 107, in page 78, line 23, at end insert
      ',or
      (ii) an arrestable offence committed in, or in the locality of, the dwelling-house.'.—[Mr. Brandreth.]

    Clause 127

      NEW GROUND OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE: ASSURED TENANCIES
      Amendments made: No. 108, in page 78, line 32, leave out 'the violence of' and insert
      'violence or threats of violence by'.
      No. 109, in page 78, line 33, leave out from 'a' to 'immediately' in line 34 and insert
      'member of the family of that partner who was residing with that partner'.
      No. 110, in page 78, line 35, at end insert', and'.
      No. 111, in page 78, line 37, leave out from 'return' to end of line 40.
      No. 112, in page 78, line 41, leave out 'has' and insert
      'and "member of the family" have'.—[Mr. Brandreth.]

    Clause 130

      POWER OF ARREST FOR BREACH OF INJUNCTIONS AGAINST ANTI-SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR
      Amendment made: No. 113, in page 81, line 10, at end insert—
      '( ) Nothing in this section prevents the grant of an injunction relating to other matters, in addition to those mentioned above, in relation to which no power of arrest is attached.'.—[Mr. Brandreth.]

    Clause 131

      POWER OF ARREST FOR BREACH OF OTHER LOCAL AUTHORITY INJUNCTIONS
      Mr. Raynsford: I beg to move amendment No. 13, in page 81, leave out lines 24 to 28 and insert—
      '(4) For the purposes of this section, any premises occupied as residential accommodation are qualifying premises.'.
      The amendment would clarify the grounds on which an injunction with power of arrest could be obtained to cover persons other than local authority tenants. We are concerned that the local authority should be able to act effectively against anyone who is causing a nuisance and making their neighbours' lives a misery. We do not accept the premise, which has been to some extent set out by the Government in the title of part V, that such offences are only the responsibility of tenants. I remind the Minister that the title of part V is "Conduct of Tenants". We are very well aware that such anti-social conduct can be perpetrated by other people as well, and we think that it is insulting to tenants to suggest that only tenants can be guilty of such behaviour.
      We therefore want to make it quite clear that the local authority or the landlord taking action in such cases can take action against people occupying any premises as residential accommodation, whether under a council tenancy or not. On many estates, where properties have been sold either as freehold houses or as leasehold flats, owners of properties live cheek by jowl with tenants and may themselves be guilty of anti-social behaviour. We want effective action against behaviour, whoever it is perpetrated by. The amendment would clarify those powers to ensure an even-handed approach in the fight against anti-social behaviour.
      Mr. Gwilym Jones: I have much sympathy with the amendment. The Government have never tried to suggest that anti-social behaviour is suffered only by those who live in public sector rented property. In part V, we are trying to help local authorities to improve the quality of life on their estates by introducing a strong power to deal with troublemakers—whether tenants or non-tenants—who cause problems. Attaching a power of arrest to an injunction in this context is a new development. Our new power is a bold step and has been made available only once before, in cases of domestic violence.
      It would be prudent to see where we are once things have bedded in and how effective the power has been before considering extending it more widely. Anti-social behaviour and what can be done about it are high on the agenda and, I assure the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford), will remain so. In future, if the Bill's powers work effectively, it may be appropriate to consider whether local authorities need similar, stronger powers to deal with the private sector or owner-occupiers.
      Mr. Betts: Is it not an anomaly that there are powers in the Bill to deal with anti-social behaviour by tenants against tenants, by tenants against owner-occupiers, by owner-occupiers against tenants, but not by owner-occupiers against owner-occupiers? Removing the idea of qualifying premises would allow the latter category of anti-social behaviour to be covered by legislation.
      Mr. Jones: I am trying to express sympathy with the point being made by the hon. Gentleman and his hon.

      1013
      Friend the Member for Greenwich. I rule nothing out in what we need to consider further. I am suggesting that we should take this first step, see how it goes and then consider what more we might need to do.
      Mr. Raynsford: My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts) rightly made the good point that the current legislation is in this respect partly defective. We would therefore have been happier if the Minister had agreed to accept the amendment, but on the understanding that the matter will be kept under review and that there will be scope for further changes at a future date, and in view of the need to press on because other very important matters, especially the issues of homelessness, need to be considered, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Amendment made: No. 114, in page 81, line 34, at end insert—
      '( ) Nothing in this section prevents the grant of an injunction relating to other matters, in addition to those mentioned above, in relation to which no power of arrest is attached.'.— [Mr. Brandreth.]

    Clause 133

      ARREST AND REMAND
      Amendments made: No. 115, in page 82, line 12, at end insert—
      'A constable shall after making any such arrest forthwith inform the person on whose application the injunction was granted.'.
      No. 116, in page 82, line 20, leave out from first 'in' to end of line 21 and insert
      'circumstances such that a power of arrest could have been attached under section 130 or 131'.—[Mr. Brandreth.]

    New clause 1

      ABSOLUTE PRIORITY IN HOUSING ALLOCATION FOR CERTAIN CATEGORIES OF PERSONS
      '1.— A local housing authority shall ensure as far as is reasonably practicable that absolute priority in the allocation of housing accommodation is given to the following persons—

      (a) a young person leaving care who is referred to the authority by a voluntary organisation;

      (b) a person who is referred to the authority by a social services authority;

      (c) a person who is referred to the authority by a health authority;

      (d) a person who is referred to the authority by a registered social landlord or voluntary organisation providing temporary accommodation for single homeless people, and which has nomination rights with that authority;

      (e) a person who is referred to the authority by a voluntary organisation which has nomination rights with that authority.'.—[Mrs. Maddock.]

      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mrs. Maddock: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time
      Madam deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following; New clause 2—Priority in housing allocation to be accorded to persons owed a duty under section 167 and 174—
      1014
      '1.— The local housing authority shall ensure as far as is reasonably practicable that absolute priority in the allocation of housing accommodation is given to a person to whom the authority has a duty under sections 167 and 174.'.
      New clause 27—Right to be allocated similar property—
      '. Any social housing tenant shall have the right to request and be offered specifically identified identically sized property owned by the same social housing landlords; unless the landlord can show that that identified property is specifically needed for a particular tenant on the grounds of medical or disability needs.'.
      Amendment No. 3, in clause 137, page 84, line 14, after '(1) ', insert—
      'Except where otherwise directed by this Part or by Part Seven of this Act,'.
      Amendment No. 4, in clause 138, page 85, line 2, at end insert—
      '(1A) They do not apply to a person to whom the authority are subject to a duty under sections 167 and 174 (a person found to be homeless).'.
      Government amendment No. 121, in clause 143, page 87, line 11, leave out '(2) ' and insert—
      '(2A) As regards priorities, the scheme shall be framed so as to secure that reasonable preference is given to—

      (a) people occupying insanitary or overcrowded housing or otherwise living in unsatisfactory housing conditions,

      (b) people occupying housing accommodation which is temporary or occupied on insecure terms,

      (c) families with dependent children,

      (d) households consisting of or including someone who is expecting a child,

      (e) households consisting of or including someone with a particular need for settled accommodation on medical or welfare grounds, and

      (f) households whose social or economic circumstances are such that they have difficulty in securing settled accommodation.

      The scheme shall also be framed so as to secure that additional preference is given to households within paragraph (e) consisting of someone with a particular need for settled accommodation on medical or welfare grounds who cannot reasonably be expected to find settled accommodation for themselves in the foreseeable future
      (2B) The Secretary of State may by regulations—

      (a) specify further descriptions of people to whom preference is to be given as mentioned in subsection (2A), or

      (b) amend or repeal any part of subsection (2A)

      (2C) The Secretary of State may by regulations specify factors which a local housing authority shall not take into account in allocating housing accommodation.
      (2D) As regards the procedure to be followed,'.
      Amendment (a) to the proposed amendment, at end of paragraph (f), insert—
      '(g) persons to whom the authority are, or have been, subject to a duty under sections 164, 167, 171 and 174 of this Act.'.
      Government amendments Nos. 122, 124 and 125
      Mrs. Maddock: We now come to what, for me, is without doubt the most important part of the Bill, because there can be no greater measure of housing need than being homeless. That principle seems to be common sense, but as I shall explain, the Government seem determined to disregard it in the Bill. Until very recently,

      1015
      that principle was accepted by all parties in Parliament. It was first set down in law in the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977.
      That historic Act was the first ever to give homeless people a right to a home, and was introduced by the then Liberal Member of Parliament Stephen Ross, who is sadly no longer with us. The Act received support from hon. Members of all political parties, including many Labour Members—who, of course, were then in government—and many Conservative Members. Three Conservative Members were sponsors of the Bill.
      Many hon. Members who supported that Act and spoke in favour of it in 1977, including then Ministers, thought of it as only the first step towards ending the dreadful honor of homelessness. It did not give a blanket right to be housed to all homeless people; it simply stated that certain groups were in priority need. The criteria that had to be met were quite harsh, such as being homeless through no direct fault of their own. People included in the priority need category were those in any household including or expecting a child, any household including an elderly person or a disabled person and any household made homeless as a result of an emergency, such as flood or fire.
      Provision for homeless people before the 1977 provisions was patchy at best, and short-termism was the order of the day. The problem was seen not as a real need for long-term housing but as a temporary requirement caused by some inadequacy on the part of the family concerned.
      The 1977 Act changed all that. Its raison d'être was to help individual families achieve a long-term solution to their individual crises of homelessness. Temporary accommodation cannot achieve such solutions, because it hinders children at school, makes it harder for people to get jobs and affects people's health—mentally and physically.
      In short, homelessness is hell, and most people who become homeless do so as a direct or indirect result of losing their job. Homelessness means that people become excluded. It divides society. It shuts people out from opportunities for education, from meaningful work, often from health care, from financial support and, fundamentally, from decent housing.
      Many homeless people become trapped in a downward spiral. Their escape routes are shut off by measures that have been enacted in recent years. Homelessness deprives people of their stake in society, and we know that it can drive them into crime.
      The effects of homelessness often continue well after people have a roof over their head. By depriving people of the security of knowing that they have long-term accommodation, we make their lives much harder, which is the very last thing that families want when they have been made homeless.
      I believe, as do many people outside the House, that we are turning the clock back to the days of "Cathy Come Home". A few years after that documentary was shown, a local authority housing officer was quoted—in a 1971 study of homeless families—as saying of homeless people:
      "I have to pay attention to the ordinary standards of decent people. We don't want these dead legs. They muck up the books and make life a misery for ordinary folk."
      1016
      The days when local authorities could get away with such an attitude are now, thankfully, over.
      The Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977 has not been perfect, but it has helped the more than 1.5 million people who have been accepted for rehousing by local authorities because of it.
      The amendments and new clauses in this group are about who should be given reasonable preference in the allocation of social housing and, in particular, whether vulnerable homeless people should be included in lists of people who receive such preference. That is what my amendment (a) to Government amendment No. 121 is about. It is not an ideal solution. The only amendments that would keep intact the right of homeless people to long-term accommodation are in a group led by my amendment No. 35, due for discussion later. However, amendment (a) would deal with the ridiculous situation in which almost anything is accepted as a measure of housing need but homelessness.
      9.30 pm
      I have no argument with the criteria that the Government have included. I shall not attempt to vote against their amendment. But I cannot see what justification the Minister can have for saying that, while insanitary and insecure accommodation will give someone reasonable preference, homelessness will not. That is unless he is saying that being homeless is extremely insanitary and extremely insecure.
      Many people outside the House are extremely worried about what is not in Government amendment No. 121. It is welcome as far as it goes, but it fails explicitly to include homeless people as a group to be given priority. Homelessness is a distinct form of need in itself, and it should be recognised in any allocations criteria. The Government amendment gives wide powers to the Secretary of State to prescribe the details of allocation procedures. I believe that adding homeless people to the new allocations criteria will result in a fairer system that will allow the needs of that group to be considered alongside the needs of others.
      Amendment (a) is the most crucial amendment in the group. It is supported by the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford). I have also tabled several other amendments, and I hope that right hon. and hon. Members will be sympathetic to them.
      New clause 1 deals with several groups of people whom I and others outside the House believe should have priority above persons who have reasonable preference. I shall deal with each of those groups briefly. I start with young persons leaving care. We had much discussion about that group in Committee, and later I shall move an amendment to ensure that children who are dealt with under the Children Act 1989 are prioritised. If the Minister can tell me in response to the points that I make that he recognises that that group of children needs to be written down and recognised in the Bill, it may not be necessary for me to press a later amendment to a vote.
      Other people who should be given priority are those referred by a social services authority to a housing authority, people referred by a health authority and people referred by a landlord providing temporary accommodation for single homeless people. All those groups were discussed in Committee, and I shall not do

      1017
      so further at this point, other than to say that I hope that the Minister will listen carefully not only to me, but to all the groups outside that are pushing for those people to be given priority.
      New clause 2 goes further than amendment (a) in ensuring that homeless households have priority over and above people who have reasonable preference in the allocation of housing. The arguments for that are the same as I have already outlined. I shall highlight only the Department of the Environment's recognition in the housing White Paper that homelessness is a searing experience as a reminder of how widespread the recognition of the problem of homelessness is.
      New clause 27, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), has my firm support and I shall allow him to propound its merits.
      Amendment No. 3 is to some extent a technical amendment that could stand in its own right, but it is designed to make it clear that any duty given to local authorities, particularly with regard to homeless persons, by part VI or part VII of the Bill will override the general allocation provisions.
      Amendment No. 4 would exempt households to whom the local authority has a duty under the homeless persons provisions from the allocations criteria, with the clear indication that the duty to house them is separate from and additional to general allocation schemes operated by the local authority. I have no quarrel with the final three Government amendments and I welcome the Secretary of State's recognition that any changes to regulations on the matter should be passed by an affirmative resolution of each House of Parliament. I pressed Ministers on that in Committee.
      As Liberal Democrats, we recognise that there is a serious problem with the length of local authority waiting lists throughout the country and, especially, that problems in some regions lead to people blaming homeless people for the length of time that others wait on the list. The Government claim that the solution of putting homeless people into temporary accommodation and then on to a waiting list is the answer, but it will not make waiting lists any shorter or make any significant difference to the speed with which most people on them will be housed.
      The Government's proposals will not reduce housing need or demand and they will certainly not increase housing supply. Some of their proposals have immediately led to a reduction in the supply of social housing. In that way, they are failing everyone in housing need.
      The challenge for us all is to strike a balance between the long-term housing needs of everyone who is adequately housed in Britain today and the immediate requirements of homeless families. Liberal Democrats believe that that can be done by a single route of entry, but only if certain conditions prevail: that all homeless households are registered on the waiting list as soon as they present themselves to the local authority; that the local authority has a duty to find them temporary accommodation of as stable a nature as possible for as long as it takes; that they are found permanent accommodation or find their own accommodation in the private sector; and that councils should be able properly to recognise the problems of homelessness and the inadequacies of temporary accommodation in the point systems that they use for allocating tenancies.
      1018
      The last of those is what amendment (a) is about. It is about not queue jumping, but putting some fairness and common sense back into the Bill. It is about allowing local authorities to consider the full picture of a person's position and ensuring that people who become homeless can be helped back on to their feet and given some stability at the earliest possible moment.
      In their 1989 homelessness review, the Government concluded:
      "there is little doubt that"
      homeless
      "people would and should expect to have priority in any system of housing allocation based on need".
      My colleagues and I are trying to ensure that that principle is in the Bill. I intend to press amendment (a) to a vote and I urge hon. Members on both sides of the House to support it.
      I am sorry only that certain hon. Members here tonight believe that this is not an interesting topic. There are people sleeping on the streets and, if we are not careful, we shall undo all the progress that we have made in recent years with the support of all parties, the Churches and all groups that have to deal with homelessness. If we are not careful, we shall undo all the work of those groups over a number of years. I strongly urge all hon. Members who care about homelessness to support amendment (a).
      Mr. Raynsford: Homelessness is one of the crucial housing and social issues of our time, and it is right that the House should have an opportunity for an albeit brief debate on those crucial elements in the Bill. Sadly, homelessness is and has been for the past few years all too evident a feature of life in Britain. It is a scar on our society, and blights the lives of hundreds of thousands of our fellow citizens. It is an affront to any civilised society to see the extent of homelessness in Britain today.
      The fact that homelessness exists on such a scale is testimony to the failure of the Government's housing policy to ensure the provision of adequate homes for people in need. It is no coincidence that the past five years have seen the lowest output of new homes for renting of any period since the end of the second world war—an average of 28,000 new homes a year, compared with more than 120,000 new rented homes a year during the five years of the Labour Government.
      The failure to provide adequately for housing needs has inevitably led to the appalling problems of homelessness that we face today. But rather than addressing those problems directly, with measures to increase the output of rented housing, and responding to people's needs, the Government are behaving in a shabby and disreputable way, by seeking to reduce local authorities' statutory responsibilities towards the homeless.
      In summary, the Government are making the victims of the homelessness crisis pay for the Government's own failure to provide adequately for people's housing needs. They are making an entirely unjustified attack on the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977, which has provided the statutory framework for the relief of homelessness throughout the past 18 years.
      As the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mrs. Maddock) said, that Act was passed with support from hon. Members from all parties. Although essentially it was passed by the Labour Government with the active

      1019
      involvement of Stephen Ross, the Liberal Member who promoted it as a private Member, it also attracted support from some Conservative Members.
      That legislation has been reviewed twice during the lifetime of the Government—in the early stages of the Government, in the early 1980s, when the current Deputy Prime Minister was Secretary of State for the Environment, and again in the late 1980s, when the late Lord Ridley and Mr. Chris Patten, who is now Governor of Hong Kong, were Secretary of State for the Environment.
      Both those reviews concluded that the legislation was working well, and that there was no need for change. It is a comment on today's Tory party that it now sees the need to interfere, and to damage legislation that the Government's predecessors regarded as working well. There is no justification for what the Government are doing; there has been no objective change in circumstances to merit it.
      The Bill is a mean, shabby piece of legislation that will withdraw assistance from many people in need by reducing local authorities' existing obligations, thus facilitating matters for local authorities that do not wish to accept their responsibilities towards the homeless. It will also break the link established by the 1977 Act, between the provision of housing for the homeless and that for all other categories of need.
      Bringing the homeless into the mainstream, rather than condemning them to a period in temporary accommodation, was one of the most important gains made under the 1977 Act. That Act put an end to some of the most disgraceful features of the treatment of the homeless, so well portrayed in the television programme that shocked the nation in the 1960s, "Cathy Come Home"—practices such as the splitting of families and the degradation of families, and the use of squalid and disgusting former workhouses and other forms of temporary accommodation for the homeless.
      The fact that the 1977 Act got away from that and concentrated on the permanent housing of homeless people was one of the great gains that it made. Yet the Government are now acting directly to reverse that, and seeking to put homeless people into temporary accommodation again.
      Believe it or not, if the Bill gets through Parliament, it will make it impossible for local authorities to provide direct rehousing for homeless people, other than in the exceptional circumstance of their already being registered on the housing waiting list and having sufficient points to qualify—or rather, to use the slightly curious term that the Minister used in Committee, of their having "almost enough" points to qualify. The Minister has never clarified how that definition would work; we know that it is a mess, and will prove unworkable.
      The Government's action is a dereliction of their responsibility to one of the most vulnerable sections of our community. It shows that today's Tory party has turned its back on the poor, the homeless and the vulnerable and demonstrates the Government's failure to ensure that the needs of all members of our society are properly met. I pledge that the Labour party, on its return to government, will ensure that there is a proper and effective statutory framework to guarantee the rights of homeless people and make sure that they get proper treatment and help in the form of permanent accommodation.
      1020
      9.45 pm
      We shall restore the framework created in 1977 if the Government succeed in their intention of dismantling it. Whatever happens tonight, I hope that this legislation will not pass unscathed in another place. It runs against all our country's instincts for fairness that underpinned the 1977 Act, which gained enormous support throughout the country—as has its retention. When the Government consulted on the proposal to change the law, more than 10,000 people responded. Almost all said that the legislation should stay, that the Government should abandon their proposals and that the 1977 Act was working well. It is only the Government who want to pursue their proposals. They are flying in the face of all informed opinion, the voluntary organisations that work with the homeless, the local authorities and the people who know and care most. Their proposals are wrong-headed and will not work or last. We will vote firmly tonight against those measures because they are wrong and we want in their place a proper framework to ensure the maintenance of responsibilities towards the homeless.
      Mr. Curry: The hon. Member for Christchurch (Mrs. Maddock) prefaced her remarks with the words "as Liberal Democrats". I might say, "as Conservatives" or "as Labour"—new or old—because this issue engages and concerns the whole House. The hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford) made some accusations about whether we cared. I do not claim such exclusivity for my concerns. They are general. There is a legitimate political argument about how we translate them into practical politics. It is not legitimate to bandy about qualitative concerns to try to show that we have more concern than other people.
      I spent part of this morning dealing with people who operate the rough sleepers initiative. That deals with the street homeless—the worst-off people in the most difficult circumstances, who are often difficult to help. I am concerned about that and I want to drive that policy forward, but I do not claim that, if I were to be replaced, it would come to a halt. The determination to tackle the problems is real and goes across the House. I stake my claim on an ecumenical basis for what I believe is an essential policy.
      I would like Opposition Members to point out where the difference lies, because in many respects it is more apparent than real. There were concerns, and I hope that I have tried to meet them. I agreed to put the allocations criteria in the Bill and to attach a power to change them by affirmative resolution so that, if it became necessary to make subsequent changes, it could be done. I have never claimed biblical certainty. We are trying to deliver something. There may be occasions when it has to be amended. That is part of normal political life if one is sensible about what one tries to put forward.
      I also changed the period of duty to two years because I thought that it was more reasonable. We are left with what I believe is the one central issue that divides the House. There is no point in denying that it does. I believe that it is reasonable to seek to distinguish between people who become homeless as a manifestation of a deep-seated, long-term need and who will require long-term help, and people who become homeless because they are overwhelmed by a particular circumstance, but who, if they are given emergency help, may be able to climb out of the

      1021
      difficulty. I recognise that a great many people will fall into the former category, but some 18 per cent. of those who are accepted as statutorily homeless never take up social housing, so there are people who fall into the latter category. Everyone needs emergency help; no one is proposing to tear that away. Indeed, the Awua judgment, which I have never prayed in aid—we intended to reform the legislation before it, so I am not prepared to make a claim that is not honest—has virtually removed the safety net in its entirety. So the practical effect of the proposals is to replace that safety net.
      All those who find themselves in that situation need that emergency help, but we need to find out whether they need the long-term accommodation and help that carries with it the right to buy and, perhaps, succession rights, or whether they can subsequently manage by themselves, which means that the social housing can be made available for those who need it on a long-term basis. That is a reasonable and honourable proposition.
      Mr. David Nicholson: My hon. Friend has certainly moved since Second Reading, when widespread concerns were expressed. He will have seen the note that I let him have from Shelter housing aid in Taunton, which pointed out that the placing of families in short-term private rented accommodation would result in greater insecurity. It emphasised that 38 per cent. of those accepted as homeless applicants in Taunton Deane in my constituency had lost private rented tenancies compared with an average for the whole country of 11 per cent., according to DOE figures. That concerns me very much. What assurances can my hon. Friend give me?
      Mr. Curry: I recognise my hon. Friend's concerns. He will know that I have had extensive discussions with Shelter and many of the voluntary organisations. My response is twofold. First, if there is not suitable private sector accommodation, people in those circumstances can be accommodated in local authority or housing association stock. Secondly, to try to make more private sector accommodation available, we are discussing allowing local authorities to lease such accommodation for 10 years, so that they can exercise more effective management under the capital financing rules—those have been widely welcomed. I should be perfectly willing to discuss a particular circumstance in my hon. Friend's constituency with him, because circumstances differ across the country.
      The Government are proposing a sensible measure. I recognise that it has raised a dispute. We are seeking to help the people in the greatest need. I am not concerned about morality, or about any of the emotional overtones that people sometimes falsely bring to a debate. There is a real emotion about this debate, which is about people in need. My focus is to help people in need. That is my sole criterion, and I therefore commend our amendments to the House. I ask the House to support us in putting those allocations criteria, as they stand, on the face of the Bill. I am confident that they will embrace the circumstances and pick up the needs that we must identify.
      We had a serious debate in Committee and I have no doubt that that debate will continue. Of course, I shall continue to discuss with colleagues across the Floor of the House how the legislation is working. I shall be ready to make changes if it appears, in practice, that it is not working as we intended. That is a sensible precaution in
      1022
      politics. Despite being a low Methodist and not having biblical truth in this matter—a primitive—I shall not enter into an argument with the hon. Member for Greenwich. I also have a quotation. Perhaps it is a curious measure, but there we are. We have had a debate across the Floor of the House. I think that the hon. Member for Greenwich was brought up in Raynsford hall and I was brought up in a council property—it is a funny old world.
      I commend the amendments to the House.
      Mr. Betts: I shall not go into the Labour party's general opposition to the dismantling of the 1977 legislation. My hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford) has already done so very well, both here and in Committee.
      I shall raise three issues about the relationship between the allocations criteria that the Minister intends to put on the face of the Bill and the rights of homeless families. The first is an issue that came up in Committee, when the Minister said that a homeless family who got nearly enough points to be at the top of the list could nevertheless be offered a permanent home immediately by the local authority.
      The Minister said that he would respond and he has done so in writing to a number of questions that we raised in Committee. I thank him for doing so. Generally, he has clarified issues, but he has done nothing to clarify this issue. Indeed, he has obscured it further. He said that, if a homeless family has nearly enough points to be at the top of the list but is not right at the top, the authority does not
      "have to allocate housing mechanistically to the person at the very top of the list."
      If local authorities started allocating houses to people who are not at the top of the list, there would quickly be a lot of complaints to the ombudsman about their allocations policy.
      The Minister went on to say:
      "I understand that, in the sorts of situations that Mr Betts had in mind, some authorities would treat the household as a special case on an exceptional basis, and would give it additional priority; there would be nothing to prevent them from doing that in the future."
      It is not acceptable for there to be a complete dismantling of the homeless persons legislation, to be replaced by the Minister saying that there is nothing to stop local authorities giving additional priority to homeless families on an exceptional basis. That is not the current fundamental right of homeless families. That is not acceptable, and it will not be workable in practice.
      I draw the Minister's attention to two other issues where the relationship between the allocations policy and the rights of homeless families appears to be flawed. The Minister said about allocations policy that authorities should give reasonable preference to people who are living in unsatisfactory housing conditions. The irony of the situation is that a homeless family who are living in housing that it is unreasonable for them to continue to occupy can be categorised as homeless and can receive automatic accommodation—according to the Minister's rehousing allocation policy.
      However, a homeless family who have no home at all cannot be rehoused under the allocations policy because there is no reference in the policy to the rights of homeless families to be awarded points under the allocation system. It is nonsensical that an allocations policy can give

      1023
      preference to someone who is homeless but who has a home that is unsatisfactory, but cannot give preference to someone who has no home at all. That stupidity is contained in the Minister's policy, which he is proposing tonight.
      Finally, paragraph (b) of the allocations policy says that people who are occupying housing accommodation that is temporary or occupied on unsecured terms can have preference. That means that a homeless family who would now be eligible for rehousing with permanent accommodation straight away can get preference only once they have been given temporary accommodation by the local authority. In other words, a homeless family have to be moved into temporary accommodation before they can get priority for permanent accommodation. Moving homeless families around from one area to another adds to family insecurity, adds different schools for their children and adds other insecurities in relation to relationships. The Government are supposed to espouse family life, but this proposal would destroy families.
      I hope that the amendments are accepted tonight, particularly amendment (a), because it would mean that, despite the rise in homeless families under the Government's allocation policy, they would be protected in a way that they are not currently.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mrs. Maddock) did not deal with one point; however, she made perfectly proper points about the difference between the Minister's approach and our approach. My hon. Friend sustained the tradition of Stephen Ross; that is a perfectly valid view. Many people believe—this is not a party point—that the one thing that would provide the opportunity for those who are homeless to be more adequately housed would be if the Government restored the substantial cuts in housing investment that have cut housing more than any other public investment sector since the Government have been in office.
      I put a separate issue to the Minister in relation to new clause 27. Five years ago, or thereabouts, an elderly tenant on a council estate in Bermondsey, the Arnold estate, asked to move to a vacant property—the same type of property that she was already in; a one-bedroom property—next door to her elderly sister. They wanted to live next door to each other so that if they were sick in the night, they could bang on the wall. The council said that it could not allocate the property to her and that she would have to go into the pool and that she would come up if she was lucky. The property was allocated to someone else. Eventually, we persuaded the council that that was an inhumane way to proceed. When the property next became vacant, the council said that it would move the lady in, but it was too late because her sister had died.
      We believe that when someone lives on an estate and an identical property comes up—no bigger, no grander, no more expensive—that is more suitable because of their immobility, disability or illness, they should be able to move into it, thereby releasing their property into the housing pool for allocation to someone else. That should happen without prejudice to those who need to be allocated a particular property on a council estate.
      One of the great iniquities of the allocation of council housing is that it is done in an inhumane way and that existing tenants cannot move where their family needs
      1024
      and their requirements require them to be. I hope that the Minister will be sympathetic to what is a new clause rooted in practical experience in south London.
      Question, That the clause be read a Second time, put and negatived.

    New clause 25

      CONDITION OF OFFERED PROPERTY
      '. Social housing shall not be allocated and prospective tenants shall not be required to accept an offer or be penalised for refusing to accept an offer unless the offered property is, at the time of the offer, in a state which would at that time be reasonable for a tenant immediately to occupy.'.—[Mr. Simon Hughes.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Madam Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also new clause 26—Independent appeals system for allocating social housing—
      '. Prospective tenants shall have the right of an independent appeal against any offer that the tenant believes to be unreasonable.'.
      10 pm
      It being Ten o'clock, further consideration of the Bill stood adjourned.
      Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business),
      That, at this day's sitting, the Housing Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Brandreth.]
      Question agreed to.
      As amended (in the Standing Committee), again considered.
      Question again proposed, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Hughes: I am not sure whether the noes had it in the previous decision, but I shall let that pass. I think that the ayes did have it this time, because otherwise we would be in some difficulty.
      First, I shall speak about a significant day-to-day problem of prospective tenants of council houses. At the moment, people can—[Interruption.]
      Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. There are too many private conversations going on. If Members want to have private conversations, they can go outside.
      Mr. Hughes: Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. We are all trying to go as quickly as possible. I am conscious that other colleagues have entered the Chamber for a vote, but obviously there are a fair number of amendments and new clauses.
      I make a very simple proposal—that, if someone is made an offer of a property by a social landlord—either a council or housing association—they should not be expected to accept the offer, and they certainly should not be penalised for refusing the offer, if, at the time that the property was offered, it was not in a fit state to occupy.

      1025
      One of the problems at the moment is that, understandably, councils are desperately trying to reach high targets of re-letting and have few void or empty properties. In the interests of trying to meet its targets, my local authority of Southwark, a Labour-run authority with the largest local housing stock in London, regularly offers property that is obviously not in a fit state for anyone to move into. It says to people, "Here is your offer; you must take it; we shall then clear it up and sort it out."
      People do not believe that, and it is very unrealistic to expect someone to say, "This is my dream home, " or even, "This is my less than dream home, " if it is in a filthy state, needs a great deal of work, needs to be cleared out and so on. I seek to establish that people who are offered public sector or social housing stock should not be required to accept the offer until the housing is in a fit state to be occupied.
      The second issue is that, when someone is made an offer, at the moment they may appeal. They may say, "I do not want to take it because it is not in a fit state, not habitable, unsafe, the electrics have not been done, the building has not been done." They have an internal appeal, if they are lucky. If they are allowed to, they can say, "I want to appeal, " and someone, hidden away somewhere in the council, decides whether the offer was reasonable.
      There is no independence; the appeal is not conducted by people who are not part of the same landlord authority. Often, the appeal is carried out without the tenant being present; the tenant does not see the process or know about the process. All the tenant knows is that the appeal has been turned down.
      Real issues, in inner London boroughs like mine, require people to be made decent offers of property that they can accept. I understand that the Minister may not want to accept these two new clauses, but I should be grateful if he would say what we can do to ensure that accommodation is offered in a fit state to be received and that there is an independent system for working out whether an offer is reasonable.
      Mr. Curry: I recognise the hon. Gentleman's concerns. Yesterday and in debate earlier today, he referred to the problems in his constituency. As he suspected, I cannot accept the new clauses as they stand, but I am willing to discuss his concerns and how the law would operate in practice—particularly in the circumstances of his constituency to which he referred. In light of that assurance, perhaps the hon. Gentleman will be willing to withdraw the new clause.
      Mr. Beggs: Does the Minister agree that properties are often declined when offered because they are in a filthy state? Does he agree that it is not unreasonable to expect the housing authority to inspect the property and, if necessary, to arrange for it to be cleaned properly before it is offered? The new tenant could then move into a reasonably clean property.
      Mr. Curry: The hon. Gentleman makes an extremely valid point. I shall reflect on ways in which we might achieve that purpose.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: I am grateful to the Minister for that response, which is entirely reasonable. Like the hon.
      1026
      Member for East Antrim (Mr. Beggs), I will be happy to discuss the matter further with the Minister, as I believe that it is within our power to remedy the problem. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
      Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 137

      ALLOCATION OF HOUSING ACCOMMODATION
      Mr. Curry: I beg to move amendment No. 117, in page 84, line 39, at end insert—
      '( ) The provisions of this Part do not apply to the allocation of housing accommodation by a local housing authority to two or more persons jointly if—

      (a) one or more of them is a person within subsection (5) (a), (b) or (c), and

      (b) none of the others is excluded from being a qualifying person by regulations under section 139(2).'.

      Madam Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also Government amendment No. 118.
      Mr. Curry: The amendments deal with exemptions from the requirement for housing to be allocated through the register and the allocation process. They allow existing tenants to become joint tenants without having to go through the housing register and the allocation process. They are commonsense measures which ensure that allocations work effectively, and I commend them to the House.
      Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 138

      CASES WHERE PROVISIONS ABOUT ALLOCATION DO NOT APPLY
      Amendment made: No. 118, in page 85, line 31, after 'excluded' insert
      '—

      (a) in relation to specified descriptions of persons, or

      (b)". —[Mr. Brandreth.]

    Clause 140
      THE HOUSING REGISTER
      Amendment made: No. 119, in page 86, line 8, at end insert 'housing'.—[Mr. Brandreth.]
    Clause 142

      INFORMATION ABOUT HOUSING REGISTER
      Amendment made: No. 120, in page 86, line 39. leave out from beginning to end of line 42 and insert—
      '( ) to be given such general information as will enable him to assess how long it is likely to be before housing accommodation appropriate to his needs becomes available for allocation to him.'.—[Mr. Brandreth.]

    Clause 143

      ALLOCATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ALLOCATION SCHEME
      Amendment proposed: No. 121, in page 87, line 11, leave out '(2) ' and insert—

      1027
      '(2A) As regards priorities, the scheme shall be framed so as to secure that reasonable preference is given to—

      (a) people occupying insanitary or overcrowded housing or otherwise living in unsatisfactory housing conditions,

      (b) people occupying housing accommodation which is temporary or occupied on insecure terms,

      (c) families with dependent children,

      (d) households consisting of or including someone who is expecting a child,

      (e) households consisting of or including someone with a particular need for settled accommodation on medical or welfare grounds, and

      (f) households whose social or economic circumstances are such that they have difficulty in securing settled accommodation.

      The scheme shall also be framed so as to secure that additional preference is given to households within paragraph (e) consisting of someone with a particular need for settled accommodation on medical or welfare grounds who cannot reasonably be expected to find settled accommodation for themselves in the foreseeable future.
      (2B) The Secretary of State may by regulations—

      (a) specify further descriptions of people to whom preference is to be given as mentioned in subsection (2A), or

      (b) amend or repeal any part of subsection (2A).

      (2C) The Secretary of State may by regulations specify factors which a local housing authority shall not take into account in allocating housing accommodation.
      (2D) As regards the procedure to be followed, '.—[Mr. Brandreth.]
      Amendment proposed to the proposed amendment: (a), at end of paragraph (f), insert—
      '(g) persons to whom the authority are, or have been, subject to a duty under sections 164, 167, 171 and 174 of this Act.'.—[Mrs. Maddock.]
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 271, Noes 304.

      Division No. 116]

      [10.07 pm

      AYES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Burden, Richard

      Adams, Mrs Irene

      Byers, Stephen

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Caborn, Richard

      Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

      Callaghan, Jim

      Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Armstrong, Hilary

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Ashton, Joe

      Cann, Jamie

      Austin-Walker, John

      Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      Chidgey, David

      Barron, Kevin

      Chisholm, Malcolm

      Battle, John

      Church, Judith

      Bayley, Hugh

      Clapham, Michael

      Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

      Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

      Beith, Rt Hon A J

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      Bell, Stuart

      Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Clelland, David

      Bennett, Andrew F

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      Benton, Joe

      Coffey, Ann

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Cohen, Harry

      Berry, Roger

      Connarty, Michael

      Betts, Clive

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Blunkett, David

      Corbett, Robin

      Boateng, Paul

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Boyes, Roland

      Corston, Jean

      Bradley, Keith

      Cousins, Jim

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Cox, Tom

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

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

      1028

      Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

      Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

      Cunningham, Roseanna

      Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

      Dafis, Cynog

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Darling, Alistair

      Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

      Davidson, Ian

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

      Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

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

      Jowell, Tessa

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

      Keen, Alan

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

      Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)

      Denham, John

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

      Dewar, Donald

      Khabra, Piara S

      Dixon, Don

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Dobson, Frank

      Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

      Dowd, Jim

      Lewis, Terry

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Liddell, Mrs Helen

      Eagle, Ms Angela

      Litherland, Robert

      Eastham, Ken

      Livingstone, Ken

      Etherington, Bill

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

      Evans, John (St Helens N)

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret

      Loyden, Eddie

      Fatchett, Derek

      Lynne, Ms Liz

      Faulds, Andrew

      McAllion, John

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Fisher, Mark

      McCartney, Ian

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      McCartney, Robert

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      McFall, John

      Foulkes, George

      McGrady, Eddie

      Fraser, John

      McKelvey, William

      Fyfe, Maria

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Galbraith, Sam

      McLeish, Henry

      Galloway, George

      Maclennan, Robert

      Gapes, Mike

      McMaster, Gordon

      Garrett, John

      MacShane, Denis

      George, Bruce

      Maddock, Diana

      Gerrard, Neil

      Mahon, Alice

      Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

      Mandelson, Peter

      Godsiff, Roger

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

      Gordon, Mildred

      Martin, Michael J (Springburn)

      Graham, Thomas

      Martlew, Eric

      Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

      Maxton, John

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Meacher, Michael

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Meale, Alan

      Grocott, Bruce

      Michael, Alun

      Gunnell, John

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Hain, Peter

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

      Hall, Mike

      Milburn, Alan

      Hanson, David

      Miller, Andrew

      Hardy, Peter

      Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

      Harman, Ms Harriet

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Harvey, Nick

      Morgan, Rhodri

      Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

      Morley, Elliot

      Henderson, Doug

      Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

      Heppell, John

      Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

      Hill, Keith (Streatham)

      Mowlam, Marjorie

      Hinchliffe, David

      Mudie, George

      Hodge, Margaret

      Mullin, Chris

      Hoey, Kate

      Murphy, Paul

      Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

      Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

      Hoon, Geoffrey

      Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

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

      O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)

      Howarth, George (Knowsley North)

      O'Brien, William (Normanton)

      Howells, Dr Kim (Pontypridd)

      O'Hara, Edward

      Hoyle, Doug

      Olner, Bill

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Pearson, Ian

      Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

      Pendry, Tom

      Hutton, John

      Pickthall, Colin

      Illsley, Eric

      Pike, Peter L

      Ingram, Adam

      Pope, Greg

      Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

      Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)

      Jamieson, David

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Janner, Greville

      Prescott, Rt Hon John

      Jenkins, Brian (SE Staff)

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Johnston, Sir Russell

      Purchase, Ken

      1029

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Strang, Dr. Gavin

      Radice, Giles

      Straw, Jack

      Randall, Stuart

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Raynsford, Nick

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Reid, Dr John

      Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

      Rendel, David

      Timms, Stephen

      Robertson, George (Hamilton)

      Tipping, Paddy

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

      Touhig, Don

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Trickett, Jon

      Rogers, Allan

      Turner, Dennis

      Rooker, Jeff

      Tyler, Paul

      Rooney, Terry

      Vaz, Keith

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Wallace, James

      Rowlands, Ted

      Walley, Joan

      Ruddock, Joan

      Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

      Salmond, Alex

      Wareing, Robert N

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Watson, Mike

      Sheerman, Barry

      Welsh, Andrew

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Short, Clare

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

      Simpson, Alan

      Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

      Skinner, Dennis

      Wilson, Brian

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      Wise, Audrey

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

      Worthington, Tony

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Wray, Jimmy

      Snape, Peter

      Wright, Dr Tony

      Soley, Clive

      Young, David (Bolton SE)

      Spellar, John

      Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

      Mr. Archy Kirkwood and

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Mr. Simon Hughes.

      NOES

      Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

      Carlisle, John (Luton North)

      Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

      Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Alexander, Richard

      Carrington, Matthew

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

      Carttiss, Michael

      Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

      Channon, Rt Hon Paul

      Amess, David

      Chapman, Sir Sydney

      Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

      Churchill, Mr

      Arbuthnot, James

      Clappison, James

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Ashby, David

      Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

      Atkins, Rt Hon Robert

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

      Coe, Sebastian

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Congdon, David

      Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)

      Conway, Derek

      Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

      Baldry, Tony

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Banks, Matthew (Southport)

      Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

      Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

      Cormack, Sir Patrick

      Batiste, Spencer

      Couchman, James

      Beggs, Roy

      Cran, James

      Bendall, Vivian

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

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Booth, Hartley

      Deva, Nirj Joseph

      Boswell, Tim

      Devlin, Tim

      Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

      Dicks, Terry

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Bowden, Sir Andrew

      Dover, Den

      Bowis, John

      Duncan, Alan

      Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

      Duncan Smith, Iain

      Brandreth, Gyles

      Dunn, Bob

      Brazier, Julian

      Durant, Sir Anthony

      Bright, Sir Graham

      Elletson, Harold

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

      Budgen, Nicholas

      Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

      Burns, Simon

      Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

      Burt, Alistair

      Evennett, David

      Butcher, John

      Faber, David

      Butler, Peter

      Fabricant, Michael

      1030

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      Legg, Barry

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Leigh, Edward

      Fishburn, Dudley

      Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

      Forman, Nigel

      Lester, Sir James (Broxtowe)

      Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)

      Lidington, David

      Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Forth, Eric

      Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

      Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

      Lord, Michael

      Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

      Luff, Peter

      Fox, Rt Hon Sir Marcus (Shipley)

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      French, Douglas

      MacKay, Andrew

      Fry, Sir Peter

      Maclean, Rt Hon David

      Gale, Roger

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Gallie, Phil

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

      Gardiner, Sir George

      Madel, Sir David

      Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

      Maitland, Lady Olga

      Garnier, Edward

      Major, Rt Hon John

      Gill, Christopher

      Malone, Gerald

      Gillan, Cheryl

      Mans, Keith

      Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

      Marland, Paul

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

      Gorst, Sir John

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)

      Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Mellor, Rt Hon David

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

      Merchant, Piers

      Grylls, Sir Michael

      Mills, Iain

      Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Hague, Rt Hon William

      Moate, Sir Roger

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald

      Molyneaux, Rt Hon Sir James

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy

      Moss, Malcolm

      Hannam, Sir John

      Needham, Rt Hon Richard

      Hargreaves, Andrew

      Neubert, Sir Michael

      Haselhurst, Sir Alan

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Hawkins, Nick

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Hawksley, Warren

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Heald, Oliver

      Norris, Steve

      Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

      Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

      Hendry, Charles

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

      Ottaway, Richard

      Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

      Page, Richard

      Hill, James (Southampton Test)

      Paice, James

      Horam, John

      Patnick, Sir Irvine

      Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Patten, Rt Hon John

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

      Pawsey, James

      Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

      Pickles, Eric

      Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

      Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

      Hunter, Andrew

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

      Rathbone, Tim

      Jack, Michael

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Renton, Rt Hon Tim

      Jessel, Toby

      Richards, Rod

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Riddick, Graham

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

      Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

      Robathan, Andrew

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

      Key, Robert

      Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

      Knapman, Roger

      Ross, William (E Londonderry)

      Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

      Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

      Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)

      Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

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

      Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

      Knox, Sir David

      Sackville, Tom

      Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

      Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Lang, Rt Hon Ian

      Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

      Lawrence, Sir Ivan

      Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

      1031

      Shersby, Sir Michael

      Tredinnick, David

      Sims, Roger

      Trend, Michael

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Trotter, Neville

      Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Soames, Nicholas

      Viggers, Peter

      Speed, Sir Keith

      Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

      Spencer, Sir Derek

      Wakden, George

      Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

      Walker, A Cecil (Belfast N)

      Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)

      Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

      Spink, Dr Robert

      Waller, Gary

      Spring, Richard

      Ward, John

      Sproat Iain

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

      Waterson, Nigel

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Watts, John

      Steen, Anthony

      Wells, Bowen

      Stephen, Michael

      Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

      Stern, Michael

      Whitney, Ray

      Stewart, Allan

      Whittingdale, John

      Sweeney, Walter

      Wiggin, Sir Jerry

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Wilkinson, John

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Willetts, David

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'fld)

      Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

      Wolfson, Mark

      Thomason, Roy

      Wood, Timothy

      Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

      Yeo, Tim

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Thornton, Sir Malcolm

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

      Mr. Michael Bates and

      Tracey, Richard

      Mr. Gary Streeter.

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Main Question put and agreed to.
      Amendments made: No. 122, in page 87, line 13, leave out 'any such regulations' and insert
      'the above provisions, and to any regulations made under them, '.
      No. 123, in page 87, line 14, at end insert—
      '( ) Before adopting an allocation scheme, or making an alteration to their scheme reflecting a major change of policy, a local housing authority shall—

      (a) send a copy of the draft scheme, or proposed alteration, to every registered social landlord with which they have nomination arrangements (see section 137(4)), and

      (b) afford those persons a reasonable opportunity to comment on the proposals.'.—[Mr. Curry.]

    Clause 148

      REGULATIONS
      Amendments made: No. 124, in page 88, line 7, leave out 'which' and insert—
      '( ) No regulations shall be made under section 143(2B) (regulations amending provisions about priorities in allocating housing accommodation) unless a draft of the regulations has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.
      ( ) Any other regulations under this Part'.
      No. 125, in page 88, line 9, after 'Part' insert
      'may contain such incidental, supplementary and transitional provisions as appear to the Secretary of State appropriate, and'.—[Mr. Curry.]

    New clause 8

      POWER EXERCISABLE AFTER MINIMUM PERIOD OF DUTY UNDER SECTION 167
      '.—(1) Where a local housing authority have been subject to the
      1032
      duty under section 167 in relation to a person until the end of the minimum period, they may continue to secure that accommodation is available for his occupation.
      (2) They shall not do so unless they are satisfied on a review under this section that—

      (a) he has a priority need,

      (b) there is no other suitable accommodation available for occupation by him in their district, and

      (c) he wishes the authority to continue securing that accommodation is available for his occupation;

      and they shall not continue to do so for more than two years at a time unless they are satisfied on a further review under this section as to those matters.
      The review shall be carried out towards the end of the minimum period, or subsequent two year period, with a view to enabling the authority to make an assessment of the likely situation at the end of that period.
      (3) They shall cease to do so if events occur such that, by virtue of section 167(6) or (7), they would cease to be subject to any duty under that section.
      (4) Where an authority carry out a review under this section they shall make such inquiries as they consider appropriate to determine—

      (a) whether they are satisfied as to the matters mentioned in subsection (2)(a) to (c), and

      (b) whether any of the events referred to in subsection (3) has occurred;

      and on completing the review they shall notify the applicant of their determination and of whether they propose to exercise, or continue to exercise, their power under this section.
      (5) The authority may at any time, whether in consequence of a review or otherwise, give notice to the person concerned that they propose to cease exercising their power under this section in his case.
      (6) The notice must specify—

      (a) the day on which they will cease exercising their power under this section, and

      (b) any action that they intend to take as a result,

      and must be given not less than the prescribed period before the day so specified.'.—[Mr. Curry.]
      Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

    Clause 168
      PERIODIC REVIEW OF CIRCUMSTANCES WHEN DUTY OWED
      Amendment made: No. 9, in page 96, line 1, leave out from beginning to end of line 23.—[Mr. Curry.]
    Clause 153

      WHETHER IT IS REASONABLE TO CONTINUE TO OCCUPY ACOMMODATION
      Mrs. Maddock: I beg to move amendment No. 5, in page 89, line 15, at end insert—
      '(1A) It is not reasonable for a person to continue to occupy accommodation if the local housing authority for the area in which the accommodation is situated are satisfied that it is unfit for human habitation within the meaning of section 604 of the Housing Act 1985'.
      The amendment would ensure that occupiers of housing unfit for human habitation would automatically be dealt with as homeless. It would avoid the uncertainty that can arise if a council's housing officers first decide that a property is not reasonable for continued habitation and designate it as unfit—but, when the occupier applies as

      1033
      homeless, the homelessness officers of the same council must ask themselves again whether the property is reasonable to occupy.
      Previously, there has been a failure to dovetail the unfitness and homelessness tests, which has caused litigation. The amendment introduces a simple, workable and uniform test. I hope that the Minister will see it that way and accept the amendment.
      Mr. Curry: I acknowledge the hon. Lady's concerns, but I cannot go as far as accepting her amendment. The provisions that establish whether a person is homeless are broadly stated in part III. They provide that, in considering the appellant's circumstances, housing authorities must have regard to general housing conditions in the area.
      That sensible provision is rooted in the circumstances— which will particularly concern the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) in his constituency—and acknowledges that some housing authorities will be under great pressure from a lot of people seeking housing assistance. It would be unreasonable to expect an authority to assess the condition of a person's housing against an ideal absolute standard if the general condition of housing for large numbers of people presented some difficulties. An absolute standard would not be a practical proposition. I appreciate the sentiments that animate the hon. Lady's amendment, but it would not make a sensible addition to the Bill.
      Mrs. Maddock: In the interests of progressing business, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 160

      ELIGIBILITY FOR ASSISTANCE
      Mrs. Maddock: I beg to move amendment No. 148, in page 91, leave out from line 34 to line 2 on page 92.
      Madam Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 14, in page 91, line 39, leave out from 'regulations' to end of line 41 and insert
      'shall not apply to a person who is not unlawfully in the UK'.
      Mrs. Maddock: Amendment No. 148 would remove the Secretary of State's power to make regulations excluding persons from abroad from receiving housing assistance under part VII—a proposal that has the support of many people who have to deal with persons who come to our country and are in housing need.
      Clause 160 empowers the Secretary of State to exclude certain groups of people from emergency housing, and, although they are not defined, the Department proposes that they should be groups who are ineligible for housing benefit. We want to ensure that they still receive housing advice. I hope that the Minister will look favourably on that proposal, which has widespread support.
      Mr. Curry: The issue raised by these amendments is whether people who have sought leave to enter the country on the understanding that they should have no recourse to public funds should be entitled to set aside
      1034
      that undertaking. The immigration rules state explicitly that the homelessness legislation falls within the definition of public funds.
      People who have applied for asylum after entering the country will have obtained their leave to enter by satisfying the entry clearance officer that they have the resources to maintain themselves. Only 5 per cent, of asylum applications are eventually accepted; even allowing for exceptional leave granted on compassionate grounds, the refusal rate is still 79 per cent.
      The purpose of the homelessness legislation is to ensure that families of vulnerable individuals who lose their home through no fault of their own are provided with a proper safety net. It is one component of a wider set of welfare provisions that we have in place to help people through a crisis and continue their normal lives, but it focuses, naturally and rightly, on people who are settled in this country.
      I appreciate the hon. Lady's concerns, but she will know that I must ensure that there is consistency between the proposed legislation and legislation passed by the House. She will understand, therefore, that I must reject her amendments.
      Mrs. Maddock: I understand what the Minister has said, but I wish to press the amendment. If the Government want to shout it down, they can do so.
      Amendment negatived.

    Clause 163

      PRIORITY NEED FOR ACCOMMODATION
      Mrs. Maddock: I beg to move amendment No. 6, in page 93, line 27, at end insert—
      '(e) any young person aged 16 or 17'.
      Madam Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also amendment No. 7, in page 93, line 27, at end insert—
      '(e) a person who qualifies for advice and assistance under section 24(2) of the Children Act 1989 or who is taken to be in need under section 17(10) of that Act.'.
      Mrs. Maddock: These amendments are about giving priority need to young people and to children.
      Amendment No. 6 says that 16 and 17-year-olds should be classed as priority need when they seek advice from local government.
      Amendment No. 7 is supported by many children's societies, including Barnardo's. In the past two days, I have received a letter from Centre Point, which is very anxious about this amendment, the purpose of which is to ensure that young people leaving care, or those assessed as being in priority need under the Children Act 1989, are regarded as having priority for homeless assistance. The amendment is supported by Barnardo's, the Children's Society, NCH Action for Children, Family Service Units, the St. Christopher Fellowship, the Catholic Children's Society, and Save the Children.
      Centre Point has pointed out that, during 1994–95, despite the Children Act, 38 per cent, of homeless young people seen by Centre Point were 17 years old or younger, and that 86 per cent, of them had been forced to leave home.

      1035
      [HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish!"] I am hearing sedentary interventions that say that this is rubbish. That is precisely the attitude that causes young people to be scapegoated.
      In my area, before Christmas, when a charity made an appeal to help young homeless people and give them places in a hostel where they would get help to continue their education and do their job, it received hate mail. We have heard from some hon. Members tonight who think that, if young people are homeless, it is their own fault, or that they wished to leave their family. I suggest that those hon. Members go to a hostel, as I did, and speak to them. Are hon. Members saying that Centre Point—a charity that I thought we all recognised does good work—is wrong? I can supply them with the excellent documentation that it has provided.
      We are asking that the Minister amends the Bill to ensure that legislation works together, and that the Children Act means something. There is evidence throughout the country that the Housing Act and the Children Act do not work together properly. This is our opportunity. The amendment has the support of many hon. Members in the House, and of all the groups I mentioned.
      I hope that the Minister will take the amendment on board. It is sensible and simple; all he has to do is accept it on behalf of all young people who need help to mount the ladder of life rather than being pushed off the bottom rung.
      10.30 pm
      Mr. Curry: I would be sorry if the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mrs. Maddock) pressed the amendment to a vote, thereby encapsulating a difference of view that I do not think exists in practice.
      The choice is between a statutory entitlement and finding a more integrated approach to tackling a problem that I fully recognise. My own dealings with the rough sleepers initiative have shown me how difficult life can be for some young people. I know that, even in my rural constituency, youngsters, particularly those going from a background of care into foyer projects, need considerable support to give them the confidence—if nothing else—to cope with life.
      The question does not really relate to the concerns involved; it relates to whether one route is better than the other. We need a comprehensive approach. For example, young people under 18 cannot hold a legal estate in land, so there are practical problems in giving them tenancies. There is some doubt about whether they can live by themselves, unsupported, at that age. Entitlement under the homelessness legislation does exist for that group: under clause 163, anyone who is vulnerable has priority need. We do, however, need to consider carefully what can be done to give young people better access to permanent social housing.
      The proposals on referrals would allow local housing authorities to make accommodation available to young people referred to them by an appropriate welfare agency, where there is enough support, without having to compete with others on the housing register. In the light of the consultations on regulations, I am seriously considering the possibility of requiring a local authority to give an entitlement to register to anyone over the age of 18 who has
      1036
      been living in the area for a specified period. Anyone in that group to whom a reasonable preference should be afforded under the allocation criteria could expect to receive serious consideration for social housing under the register.
      The homelessness code of guidance was written before the Children Act came into effect. It needs updating in the light of experience gained from its operation, and to link with the new provisions in the Bill. I shall use the opportunity to make clear the real need for the different services to work together to meet young people's needs, and to suggest how that may be done. We need the co-operation of the Department of Health, which has the main responsibility for the Children Act.
      I believe that that integrated approach is right. If, while we are preparing the package, it becomes apparent that the current legislation is inadequate, or is being intepreted too restrictively by some housing authorities, I shall be prepared to use the order-making power to ensure that the legislation takes proper account of the needs of vulnerable young people. I think that that is the right way forward.
      I do not want to have to advise the House to reject the amendment, because that would suggest the existence of a divide between us, which, in practical terms, does not exist.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: Will the Minister do one more thing? He must try to persuade some of his Back Benchers that young people leaving home are not leaving some luxury accommodation where all is happiness and light and everyone gets on swimmingly in order to move, at public expense, to equally luxurious accommodation where they can be on their own.
      The Minister knows from his experience, as I know from mine, that most young people who leave home end up in a much more precarious position. The accommodation with which they may be provided, under statutory instrument or other legislation, is normally hostel accommodation. It is by nature temporary, and involves living with other people. It is not ideal; it is not long-term. We must get away from the idea that this is a jolly good thing which young people use to exploit the system.
      The Minister's experience, like mine, will tell him that we risk seeing more and more young people, for whatever reason, leaving home and becoming the sort of people with whom the rough sleepers initiative must deal. All the centres I visited in the winter told me that more young people were turning up than in previous years. The state is not suddenly giving young people independence and a life of luxury. If we can make that message understood, we can start to respond in a way that ensures that, whatever the law says, we treat youngsters as a priority. If we can make them secure when they are young, they are far more likely to become secure adults who bring up secure families in secure homes.
      Mr. Curry: That is one reason why the winter shelter programme will be extended next year to provide up to 450 beds—with, of course, specialist provision for those in particular need.
      Mrs. Maddock: I know that the Minister takes the matter very seriously, and I hear what he says. If hon. Members who have been dismissive look at the figures, they will see that the majority of young people who have presented themselves as homeless left their families because they had been abused—often physically, and

      1037
      often sexually. The issue is incredibly important. The Minister has made a very good case for amendment No. 7, and I shall press it to a vote.
      Amendment negatived.
      Amendment proposed: No. 7, in page 93, line 27, at end insert:
      '(e) a person who qualifies for advice and assistance under section 24(2) of the Children Act 1989 or who is taken to be in need under section 17(10) of that Act.'.—[Mrs. Maddock.]
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 252, Noes 291.

      Division No. 117]

      [10.37pm

      AYES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Darling, Alistair

      Adams, Mrs Irene

      Davidson, Ian

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'tryNE)

      Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

      Allen, Graham

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

      Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Armstrong, Hilary

      Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

      Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

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

      Ashton, Joe

      Denham, John

      Austin-Walker, John

      Dewar, Donald

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      Dixon, Don

      Barron, Kevin

      Dobson, Frank

      Battle, John

      Dowd, Jim

      Bayley, Hugh

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

      Eagle, Ms Angela

      Beith, Rt Hon A J

      Eastham, Ken

      Bell, Stuart

      Etherington, Bill

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Evans, John (St Helens N)

      Bennett, Andrew F

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret

      Benton, Joe

      Fatchett, Derek

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      Berry, Roger

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Betts, Clive

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Blunkett, David

      Foulkes, George

      Boateng, Paul

      Fyfe, Maria

      Bradley, Keith

      Galbraith, Sam

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

      Galloway, George

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Gapes, Mike

      Burden, Richard

      George, Bruce

      Byers, Stephen

      Gerrard, Neil

      Caborn, Richard

      Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

      Callaghan, Jim

      Godsiff, Roger

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Gordon, Mildred

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Graham, Thomas

      Cann, Jamie

      Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

      Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Chidgey, David

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Chisholm, Malcolm

      Grocott, Bruce

      Church, Judith

      Gunnell, John

      Clapham, Michael

      Hain, Peter

      Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

      Hall, Mike

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      Hanson, David

      Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

      Hardy, Peter

      Clelland, David

      Harman, Ms Harriet

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      Harvey, Nick

      Coffey, Ann

      Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

      Cohen, Harry

      Henderson, Doug

      Connarty, Michael

      Heppell, John

      Corbett, Robin

      Hill, Keith (Streatham)

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Hinchliffe, David

      Corston, Jean

      Hodge, Margaret

      Cousins, Jim

      Hoey, Kate

      Cox, Tom

      Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Hoon, Geoffrey

      Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

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

      Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

      Howarth, George (Knowsley North)

      Cunningham, Roseanna

      Howells, Dr Kim (Pontypridd)

      Dafis, Cynog

      Hoyle, Doug

      1038

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)

      Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

      O'Brien, William (Normanton)

      Hutton, John

      O'Hara, Edward

      Illsley, Eric

      Olner, Bill

      Ingram, Adam

      Pearson, Ian

      Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

      Pendry, Tom

      Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

      Pickthall, Colin

      Jamieson, David

      Pike, Peter L

      Jenkins, Brian (SE Staff)

      Pope, Greg

      Johnston, Sir Russell

      Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)

      Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Purchase, Ken

      Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

      Radice, Giles

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Randall, Stuart

      Jowell, Tessa

      Raynsford, Nick

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Reid, Dr John

      Keen, Alan

      Rendel, David

      Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

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

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Khabra, Piara S

      Rogers, Allan

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Rooker, Jeff

      Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Lewis, Terry

      Rowlands, Ted

      Liddell, Mrs Helen

      Ruddock, Joan

      Livingstone, Ken

      Salmond, Alex

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Sheerman, Barry

      Loyden, Eddie

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Lynne, Ms Liz

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      McAllion, John

      Short, Clare

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Simpson, Alan

      McCartney, Ian

      Skinner, Dennis

      McCartney, Robert

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

      McFall, John

      Smith, LIew (Blaenau Gwent)

      McGrady, Eddie

      Soley, Clive

      McKelvey, William

      Spellar, John

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

      McLeish, Henry

      Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

      Maclennan, Robert

      Steinberg, Gerry

      McMaster, Gordon

      Straw, Jack

      MacShane, Denis

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Maddock, Diana

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Mahon, Alice

      Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

      Mandelson, Peter

      Timms, Stephen

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Tipping, Paddy

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

      Touhig, Don

      Martin, Michael J (Springburn)

      Trickett, Jon

      Martlew, Eric

      Turner, Dennis

      Maxton, John

      Tyler, Paul

      Meacher, Michael

      Vaz, Keith

      Meale, Alan

      Wallace, James

      Michael, Alun

      Walley, Joan

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Warden, Gareth (Gower)

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

      Wareing, Robert N

      Milburn, Alan

      Watson, Mike

      Miller, Andrew

      Welsh, Andrew

      Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Morgan, Rhodri

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

      Morley, Elliot

      Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

      Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

      Worthington, Tony

      Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

      Wray, Jimmy

      Mowlam, Marjorie

      Wright, Dr Tony

      Mudie, George

      Young, David (Bolton SE)

      Mullin, Chris

      Murphy, Paul

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

      Mr. Archy Kirkwood and

      Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

      Mr. Simon Hughes.

      NOES

      Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

      Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

      Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

      Amess, David

      Alexander, Richard

      Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

      Arbuthnot, James

      1039

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

      Ashby, David

      Evennett, David

      Atkins, Rt Hon Robert

      Faber, David

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

      Fabricant, Michael

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

      Fishburn, Dudley

      Baldry, Tony

      Forman, Nigel

      Banks, Matthew (Southport)

      Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)

      Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

      Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)

      Batiste, Spencer

      Forth, Eric

      Beggs, Roy

      Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

      Bendall, Vivian

      Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Fox, Rt Hon Sir Marcus (Shipley)

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      French, Douglas

      Booth, Hartley

      Fry, Sir Peter

      Boswell, Tim

      Gale, Roger

      Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

      Gallie, Phil

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

      Gardiner, Sir George

      Bowden, Sir Andrew

      Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

      Bowis, John

      Garnier, Edward

      Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

      Gill, Christopher

      Brandreth, Gyles

      Gillan, Cheryl

      Brazier, Julian

      Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

      Bright, Sir Graham

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Gorst, Sir John

      Burns, Simon

      Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)

      Burt, Alistair

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Butcher, John

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Butler, Peter

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

      Carlisle, John (Luton North)

      Grylls, Sir Michael

      Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Gummer, Rt Hon jonn selwyn

      Carrington, Matthew

      Hague, Rt Hon William

      Carttiss, Michael

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald

      Channon, Rt Hon Paul

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Chapman, Sir Sydney

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Churchill, Mr

      Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy

      Clappison, James

      Hannam, Sir John

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Hargreaves, Andrew

      Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

      Haselhurst, Sir Alan

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Hawkins, Nick

      Coe, Sebastian

      Hawksley, Warren

      Congdon, David

      Heald, Oliver

      Conway, Derek

      Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

      Hendry, Charles

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

      Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

      Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

      Couchman, James

      Hill, James (Southampton Test)

      Cran, James

      Horam, John

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

      Hordem, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

      Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

      Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

      Day, Stephen

      Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

      Deva, Nirj Joseph

      Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

      Devlin, Tim

      Hunter, Andrew

      Dicks, Terry

      Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Jack, Michael

      Dover, Den

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Jessel Toby

      Duncan, Alan

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Duncan Smith, Iain

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Dunn, Bob

      Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

      Durant, Sir Anthony

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Elletson, Harold

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Key, Robert

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

      Knapman, Roger

      Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

      Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

      Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)

      1040

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

      Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

      Knox, Sir David

      Ross, William (E Londonderry)

      Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

      Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

      Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

      Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

      Lang, Rt Hon Ian

      Sackville, Tom

      Lawrence, Sir Ivan

      Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

      Legg, Barry

      Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Leigh, Edward

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

      Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

      Lester, Sir James (Broxtowe)

      Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

      Lidington, David

      Shersby, Sir Michael

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Sims, Roger

      Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Lord, Michael

      Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

      Luff, Peter

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Soames, Nicholas

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Speed, Sir Keith

      MacKay, Andrew

      Spencer, Sir Derek

      Maclean, Rt Hon David

      Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

      Spink, Dr Robert

      Madel, Sir David

      Spring, Richard

      Maitland, Lady Olga

      Sproat, Iain

      Major, Rt Hon John

      Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

      Malone, Gerald

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Mans, Keith

      Stephen, Michael

      Marland, Paul

      Stern, Michael

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Stewart, Allan

      Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

      Sweeney, Walter

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Mellor, Rt Hon David

      Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

      Merchant, Piers

      Thomason, Roy

      Mills, Iain

      Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Moate, Sir Roger

      Thornton, Sir Malcolm

      Molyneaux, Rt Hon Sir James

      Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

      Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector

      Tracey, Richard

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Tredinnick, David

      Moss, Malcolm

      Trend, Michael

      Needham, Rt Hon Richard

      Trotter, Neville

      Neubert, Sir Michael

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Viggers, Peter

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

      Norris, Steve

      Walden, George

      Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

      Walker, A Cecil (Belfast N)

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

      Ottaway, Richard

      Waller, Gary

      Page, Richard

      Ward, John

      Paice, James

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Patnick, Sir Irvine

      Waterson, Nigel

      Patten, Rt Hon John

      Watts, John

      Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Wells, Bowen

      Pawsey, James

      Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Whitney, Ray

      Pickles, Eric

      Whittingdale, John

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

      Wiggin, Sir Jerry

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Wilkinson, John

      Rathbone, Tim

      Willetts, David

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

      Renton, Rt Hon Tim

      Wolfson, Mark

      Richards, Rod

      Wood, Timothy

      Riddick, Graham

      Yeo, Tim

      Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Robathan, Andrew

      Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

      Mr. Michael Bates and

      Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

      Mr. Gary Streeter.

      Question accordingly negativated.

    Clause 167

      DUTY TO PERSONS WITH PRIORITY NEED WHO ARE NOT HOMELESS INTENTIONALLY
      Mrs. Maddock: I beg to move amendment No.35, in page, leave out lines 44 to 45.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 8, in page 95, leave out lines 1 to 17 and insert—
      '(2) Unless the authority refer the application to anther local housing authority they shall secure that permanent accommodation is available for occupation by the applicant.'.
      No. 15, in page 95, line 4, leave out from 'authority' to end of line 20 and insert
      'shall take reasonable steps thereafter to secure that accommodation does not cease to be available for his occupation.'
      No. 34, in clause 171, page 97, leave out lines 29 to 40.
      No. 18, in page 97, leave out from end of line 37 to line 40 and insert
      'and which it may reasonably be expected will remain available for his occupation until the authority would be entitled to carry out a review under section [Power exercisable after minimum period of duty under section 167].
      (2) In that case, their only duty is to furnish him with such advice and assistance as will secure that suitable accommodation is available.'.
      Mrs. Maddock: I do not intend to detain the House long. Hon. Members have been most patient, and I am most grateful for the presence of so many of them. We have rehearsed the arguments time and again. The group of amendments is about the provision of permanent accommodation for homeless people. We have already lost the vote on that issue, but if the amendments were accepted they would give priority to such provision.
      If we had persuaded the Government of our case, the amendments would have provided extra ways of ensuring that the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977 would not be undone. I realise that we are not securing Ministers' support on the issue, but what they are doing represents a retrograde step, because we are talking about homeless families.
      It is amazing that, although the Government claim to represent the party of the family, what Conservative Members have voted for will mean that homeless families with children are pushed into temporary accommodation because they cannot be given permanent housing. The Minister has moved a little, and said that people can have temporary accommodation for two years; at one time the limit was one year. Nevertheless, I repeat to him and to the House what I told him in Committee: when one is two years old, two years is a long time. Moreover, survey after survey has shown the effect on young children when families have to keep moving about.
      If the Government accepted our amendments, and with them the proposition that a homeless family with young children needs permanent accommodation, the position would be transformed. The housing benefit bill will soar as a result of the legislation, as more and more people are put into temporary accommodation, so the amendments, like the others that we have tabled, would be in the interests not only of homeless families but of the public purse.
      1042
      I shall listen with interest to the Minister, although I know that he will repeat the arguments that we have heard before. I do not doubt his sincerity. Earlier he accused me of taking too political an attitude to the issue, but the fact is that Conservative Members have been whipped through to vote against our amendments, which we consider important, especially for homeless families. I hope that when those hon. Members go home tonight they will reflect on the fact that what they have done will work against the interests of the families with young children who are some of the most vulnerable people in our society.
      Mr. Curry: I cannot accept the amendments. As the hon. Lady has acknowledged, her amendment would go against the essential purposes of the Bill. Our purpose is to create circumstances in which we can assess people's underlying needs and provide emergency help in all cases, but then provide access to secure long-term accommodation only to those who really need it, because of the benefit that that confers.
      I appreciate the hon. Lady's point about families. We are concerned that their needs should be taken into account, and she will find that, in the manner in which we implement the legislation, we shall seek to bring that about. However, she will recognise the fact that she is really asking me to undo the measures at the heart of this part of the Bill. Equally, she will appreciate that I am not prepared to do that. I am sorry that we are divided on that but it is best to be honest about it.
      Mrs. Maddock: I am not at all surprised at the Minister's answer. As I said, we have rehearsed the arguments before. In the interests of moving on and because of what has been voted down, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 168
      PERIODIC REVIEW OF CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE DUTY OWED
      Amendment made: No. 9, in page 96, line 1, leave out from beginning to end of line 23.—[Mr. Curry.]
    Clause 177

      DISCHARGE OF FUNCTIONS BY LOCAL HOUSING AUTHORITIES
      Mrs. Maddock: I beg to move amendment No. 149, in page 101, line 17, at end insert—
      This does not apply where the person concerned is -entitled to reasonable preference in the allocation of housing accommodation under Part VI of this Act.'.
      Again I shall be brief. The amendment would remove the two-year restriction on the use of a local authority's stock to provide temporary accommodation. Under the Bill, if a local authority houses a homeless family in its own stock in the two-year period, that family will have to be taken out of that property. It is madness. We tried to persuade the Minister in Committee, where he was pressed heavily by all members about how it would work. Is he saying that a family that has been in a local authority tenancy for two years because it was the best place to put them when they were homeless will have to be moved out? That is not sensible. The Minister has argued that it is sensible and I am sure that he will again.
      Mr. Curry: I am afraid that the hon. Lady is right. The provision is necessary to buttress the two-year rule.

      1043
      Housing associations are a different matter. I intend to try to extend the leasing arrangements in private sector accommodation so as to give local authorities a better and higher-quality alternative in the private rented sector. However the rule is central to buttressing the two-year duty. She will acknowledge that we have extended it to two years. I am afraid that I am unable to accept the amendment.
      Mrs. Maddock: I acknowledge that the Minister extended the period to two years and welcome the fact that he will consider helping housing associations and others to use private sector accommodation that they manage to house homeless families for rather longer than the lets that such people might have got in the private sector. In view of the amendments that have been voted down, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    New clause 7

      MORTGAGE REPOSSESSIONS
      '.—(1) For the purposes of section 36 of the Administration of Justice Act 1970 and section 8 of the Administration of Justice Act 1973 (under which a court has power to delay giving a mortgagee possession of the mortgaged property so as to allow the mortgagor a reasonable period to pay any sums due under the mortgage) there shall be a presumption that the full remaining period of the mortgage term is the reasonable period.
      (2) The court may exercise any of its powers under this section notwithstanding that the court may have exercised its powers under this section on a previous occasion.'.—[Mr. Raynsford.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Raynsford: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      New clause 7 deals with mortgage repossessions, which are a serious cause for concern throughout the country. Approximately 1, 000 people a week lose their homes through repossessions. More than 300, 000 households have suffered that fate over the past six years. That is a human disaster for all those families. They have suffered the grief and anguish of repossession, but it has also had a damaging impact on the housing market. The market has received a constant flood of repossessed properties at a time when there is little confidence in the private market.
      It is right to consider the need to do more to tackle the problem of repossessions, both to help people at risk of repossession and to ensure that there are measures to help to restore confidence in the market. New clause 7 is designed to build on the recent court judgment that established the principle that a mortgagor should be given a proper opportunity—a reasonable period—to repay debts due under the mortgage. It would give statutory effect to that court judgment to assist in the development of good practice by lenders so that they explore all reasonable alternatives to repossession. Several initiatives have already been taken, including options for shared ownership schemes. The measure would be a further weapon in the armoury to try to reduce the unacceptable toll of human casualties caused by repossession. I hope that the Minister will respond sympathetically to this initiative to help those victims.
      Mr. Clappison: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. If he carefully studies the Court of Appeal case to
      1044
      which he referred, he will find that it makes his amendment unnecessary. The amendment would create a presumption, but that recent case provides strong authority for the proposition that judges should take, as the starting point for determining what constitutes a reasonable period for repayment of arrears outstanding on a mortgage, the remaining term of the mortgage.
      11 pm
      Mr. Simon Hughes: I support the new clause, as does my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mrs. Maddock), and I hear what the Minister says. The important thing is that we get into the heads of the building societies, the lenders and those with a financial interest the fact that they must, as a duty, consider alternative ways of re-financing. There are some good schemes—Rowntree has one in York which I have visited and there are others—that allow people to staircase up and down and move from up to 90 per cent. ownership down to 10 per cent., if financial circumstances require. If people are given half a chance, as the Minister and the Department know well, there are often ways in which they can reorganise their finances. The Bill must deal with unemployment and temporary financial difficulties. If what the Minister says is right, all courts should follow that authority unless it is overturned. There is a risk that it would be overturned.
      Mr. Clappison: indicated dissent.
      Mr. Hughes: I accept that it is only a slight risk—if the matter went to the House of Lords. The Minister has an obligation not just to rely on the Court of Appeal current judgment but to ensure that the Department always makes it clear to building societies that the principle most recently enunciated in that judgment is the one that they should follow. He should ensure that the courts understand that and, above all, that purchasers understand it. There should be a trigger whereby, if people run into financial difficulty, they will go into a process of renegotiating their mortgage and will not suddenly be at risk of being turfed out of their home, which might be the most secure place for them and for the investment, for both parties in the proceedings.
      Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Am I not right in thinking that the Council of Mortgage Lenders and the Building Societies Association have issued a consultative document on a code of practice? Surely that very much meets the concern expressed by the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford). Am I not also right in believing—I say this with some pride and satisfaction, as I have campaigned consistently about the housing market for the past two years—that, for the past three or four months, the number of people in negative equity has dropped dramatically and is now well below 1 million, having been up to perhaps 1.4 million?
      Mr. Clappison: My hon. Friend is right on both points. Guidance has been issued and negative equity is, fortunately, declining.
      Mr. Raynsford: In response to the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), our argument is not with the Council of Mortgage Lenders, which has issued guidance, but with the Government, who have presided over the worst catastrophe of repossessions that the

      1045
      country has known—a Government who have watched 1,000 people lose their homes through repossession every week and who have done nothing in the Housing Bill to tackle the problem of repossessions. That is why we raised that issue tonight and why we will continue to campaign—not just on that but on many other issues—for measures to assist home owners in difficulty, to give them help and a prospect of getting out of their difficulty.
      I do not intend to press the new clause further tonight, but I give notice that the Labour party will return to the issue between now and the general election. The Government will pay a heavy price for all those people who have suffered repossession in the past six years. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
      Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    New clause 31

      INDEPENDENT HOUSING ADVICE
      '. The Housing Corporation shall have a duty to ensure that within the area of each local housing authority there exists a registered independent housing advice agency competent to deal with inquiries from all tenants or would-be tenants, owner-occupiers, or would-be owner-occupiers, and those who have shared ownership properties or wish to become part-owners/part-tenants.'.—[Mr. Simon Hughes.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Simon Hughes: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Hon. Members will be happy to know that we are getting towards the end of the amendments.
      Mr. Clappison: The hon. Gentleman's pager is going off.
      Mr. Hughes: I know, the red light is flashing. It is a warning for the Government, not for us. I shall not read out the message, because it may be inappropriate. The advice that people are currently given is inadequate to protect would-be tenants, would-be shared owners and would-be purchasers. The new clause would establish an independent, recognised housing advice agency in every local authority area. We would need to promote the work of such agencies.
      I am sure that the Minister is aware that some people enter into tenancy agreements—particularly in the private sector—but do not know what they are letting themselves in for. Clearly, they have not taken good or competent advice. Many people have bought their own properties—particularly from local authorities as leaseholders—without having been given proper advice by their lawyers. Those people should have the opportunity to take action against their then legal advisers, but that would be the long way around.
      The most recent example—I shared it with hon. Members in another context yesterday—relates to people who have gone into shared ownership arrangements but who have not understood all the implications—in other words, they have been caught. We have to ensure that when people become owner-occupiers, share owners or tenants, they understand the score. They should not be subjected to propaganda that persuades them that
      1046
      owner-occupation is what they want—it may be the last thing they need. I hope that the Minister can give a helpful response.
      Mr. Clappison: It is important that people receive advice in these situations. However, the Housing Corporation is not the right body to provide that advice. The hon. Gentleman will see that clause 154 places a duty on local authorities to provide such advice. The Department of the Environment also provides substantial funding for various voluntary bodies to provide such advice. They are the right people to provide the advice.
      Mr. Hughes: I ask the Minister to reflect on whether the local authority is always the appropriate body—it has a vested interest as it is the landlord of a lot of the stock and it is the one that sells under the right to buy. Is the Minister satisfied that there is a recognised advice agency that is independent of the local authority in each local authority area, at least in England?
      Mr. Clappison: I assure the hon. Gentleman that organisations such as Shelter and the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux are provided with funding from the Department of the Environment to provide the sort of advice that he described.
      Mr. Hughes: It would be helpful for all hon. Members to have that information for our constituents, and I encourage that. So long as people are given advice, they will not get into a muddle. I hope that the advice will be clear in the future. On the basis that the Government will seek to ensure that that advice is given to everyone, and that people are not subject to propaganda in the future in the way they have been in the past, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
      Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 192
      THE ISLES OF SCILLY
      Amendment made: No. 126, in page 108, line 32, leave out 'amendment' and insert 'annulment'.—[Mr. Knapman.]
    Schedule 16

      REPEALS
      Amendments made: No. 142, in page 174, line 32, leave out from beginning to end of line 23 on page 176 and insert—

      Chapter

      Short title

      Extent of repeal

      1985c. 69.

      Housing Associations Act 1985.

      Sections 3 to 8.

      Section 9(1) and (4).

      Section 11.

      Sections 13 to 32.

      Section 36A.

      Section 60.

      Section 67.

      Section 69(1)(e) and (g).

      Schedules 2 and 3.

      1988 c. 9.

      Local Government Act 1988.

      Section 24(5)(a) and (c).

      1988 c. 50.

      Housing Act 1988.

      Sections 48 and 49.

      Section 55(1)(a).

      Section 58.

      In Schedule 6, paragraphs 3 to 6 and 9 to 23.

      1989 c. 42.

      Local Government and Housing Act 1989.

      Section 182.

      1993 c. 10.

      Charities Act 1993.

      In Schedule 6, paragraph 21(3).

      1993 c. 28.

      Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993.'

      Section 134.

      No. 24, in page 178, line 17, column 3, leave out 'subsection' and insert 'subsections'.
      No. 25, in page 178, line 17, column 3, at end insert (6) and (7).'.
      No. 153, in page 178, column 3, leave out line 18 and insert—
      'In section 39, in subsection (3), the word "and" at the end of paragraph (b), and subsection (6).'.—[Mr. Knapman.]

    Clause 198

      EXTENT
      Amendment made: No. 126A, in page 109, line 40, leave out from beginning to end of line 6 on page 110 and insert—
      '(4) Any amendment or repeal by this Act of an enactment has the same extent as the enactment amended or repealed, except that amendments or repeals of—

      (a) provisions of the Housing Associations Act 1985, or

      (b) provisions of the Housing Act 1988 relating to registered housing associations, do not extend to Scotland.

      (5) Any power conferred by this Act to make consequential amendments or repeals of enactments may be exercised in relation to enactments as they extend to any part of the United Kingdom.'—[Mr. Knapman.]
      Order for Third Reading read.—[Queen's Consent and Prince of Wales's Consent signified.]
      11.8 pm
      Mr. Curry: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
      This is an excellent Bill, and I commend it to the House.
      11.9 pm
      Mr. Raynsford: Although I would be delighted to be as brief as the Minister, I shall detain the House, but for no more than three minutes. I have three minutes to cover a Bill that affects the lives of millions of people, and that, sadly, will make an already bad housing situation much worse for many of those people. Three minutes to cover the problems of the homeless, the problems that are inadequately dealt with by the Bill, and that will become very much worse for those who will be condemned to revolving-door homelessness, and insecurity and misery as a result of the Bill.
      I have two minutes to cover the problems of all those people seeking decent housing who will not get it because the Bill does nothing to expand the programme of rented housing when we need an expanded programme of investment in rented housing. There is nothing in the Bill to
      1048
      tackle the problem of all those home owners in difficulty, who fear that their homes will be repossessed, not to mention the million or so still trapped in negative equity.
      Two minutes to cover those people who are inadequately catered for by the Bill, which tinkers with the problems rather than providing effective responses. I think especially of leaseholders, whose prospects were betrayed by the Government today. Leaseholders had a prospect of effective remedies against crooked landlords and effective prospects of enfranchising their homes, but their hopes were dashed by a Government who are in hock to the big landlords and more interested in the party's financial interests than in the safety and the prospects of leaseholders.
      This is a bad, inadequate Bill, which has not coped with the country's housing needs and will, in many ways, make the problem worse. We sought to make substantial amendments to the Bill in Committee; we made many amendments. Sadly, not all those amendments have survived today, but I have the following message for the Government: "Your party will reap a very serious penalty for your actions today in turning against leaseholders and denying them the prospect of enfranchisement and sanctions against rogue landlords. Very many Tory candidates in marginal constituencies will bitterly rue the day your party betrayed leaseholders in the House."
      The Labour party commits itself to a housing policy that addresses the needs of the whole nation—that copes with the needs of home owners, tenants, leaseholders and homeless people. We recognise our responsibility to introduce a proper housing policy as soon as the general election has swept the present discredited Government away. They will be remembered for the disastrous failure of their housing policy. Their time is running out.
      11.12 Pm
      Mrs. Maddock: I acknowledge that the Minister responded very positively to many of the suggestions that we made in Committee and in the House today. Not least, I welcome the fact that homeless families will have a right to be looked after for two years. It is a shame that it will not be permanent accommodation.
      I welcome the fact that, in response to many of our worries, the Minister made changes to the Bill regarding regulations. He expressed concern earlier that I spoke about the Bill being political, but it is a fact that Conservative Members were whipped through the Division Lobby tonight to vote against the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act, which has worked well since 1977. Conservative Members voted against a long-term solution for the most vulnerable people, who have had most difficulties in life.
      It was the Government who, in their last Budget, broke their promise on their commitments to spending on social housing, and in that Budget halved the amount that they had promised the year before. The Bill will mean that more people will be in temporary accommodation and increase the already burgeoning housing benefit budget. Much of that money will be spent on some of the worst accommodation in the country.
      The Bill's tragedy is that it has done nothing to increase the supply of housing. That is the problem; that is why there has been an argument. How do we fit the vast number of people seeking housing into the ever-dwindling

      1049
      Supply? This year, we shall build 50, 000 new units—the fewest in any year since the war. That is the real problem, and that is the tragedy of what we have done here tonight.
      Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 286, Noes 256.

      Division No. 118]

      [11.14 pm

      AYES

      Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

      Devlin, Tim

      Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

      Dicks, Terry

      Alexander, Richard

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

      Dover, Den

      Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

      Duncan, Alan

      Amess, David

      Duncan Smith, Iain

      Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

      Dunn, Bob

      Arbuthnot, James

      Durant, Sir Anthony

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Elletson, Harold

      Ashby, David

      Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Atkins, Rt Hon Robert

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

      Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

      Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)

      Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

      Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

      Evennett, David

      Baldry, Tony

      Faber, David

      Banks, Matthew (Southport)

      Fabricant, Michael

      Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      Bates, Michael

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Batiste, Spencer

      Fishburn, Dudley

      Bendall, Vivian

      Forman, Nigel

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Forth, Eric

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

      Booth, Hartley

      Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

      Boswell, Tim

      Fox, Rt Hon Sir Marcus (Shipley)

      Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

      Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

      French, Douglas

      Bowden, Sir Andrew

      Fry, Sir Peter

      Bowis, John

      Gale, Roger

      Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

      Gallie, Phil

      Brazier, Julian

      Gardiner, Sir George

      Bright, Sir Graham

      Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

      Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

      Garnier, Edward

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Gill, Christopher

      Burns, Simon

      Gillan, Cheryl

      Burt, Alistair

      Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

      Butcher, John

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Butler, Peter

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Carlisle, John (Luton North)

      Gorst, Sir John

      Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)

      Carrington, Matthew

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Carttiss, Michael

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Channon, Rt Hon Paul

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

      Chapman, Sir Sydney

      Grylls, Sir Michael

      Churchill, Mr

      Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

      Clappison, James

      Hague, Rt Hon William

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald

      Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Coe, Sebastian

      Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy

      Congdon, David

      Hannam, Sir John

      Conway, Derek

      Hargreaves, Andrew

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

      Haselhurst, Sir Alan

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Hawkins, Nick

      Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

      Hawksley, Warren

      Couchman, James

      Heald, Oliver

      Cran, James

      Hendry, Charles

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

      Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

      Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

      Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

      Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

      Hill, James (Southampton Test)

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Horam, John

      Day, Stephen

      Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Deva, Nirj Joseph

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      1050

      Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

      Pickles, Eric

      Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

      Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

      Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Hunter, Andrew

      Rathbone, Tim

      Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Jack, Michael

      Renton, Rt Hon Tim

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Richards, Rod

      Jessel, Toby

      Riddick, Graham

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Robathan, Andrew

      Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

      Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

      Key, Robert

      Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

      Knapman, Roger

      Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

      Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

      Ryder, Rt Hon Richard

      Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)

      Sackville, Tom

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

      Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

      Knox, Sir David

      Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

      Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

      Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

      Lang, Rt Hon Ian

      Shersby, Sir Michael

      Lawrence, Sir Ivan

      Sims, Roger

      Legg, Barry

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Leigh, Edward

      Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

      Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Lester, Sir James (Broxtowe)

      Soames, Nicholas

      Lidington, David

      Speed, Sir Keith

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Spencer, Sir Derek

      Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

      Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

      Lord, Michael

      Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)

      Luff, Peter

      Spink, Dr Robert

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Spring, Richard

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Sproat, Iain

      MacKay, Andrew

      Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

      Maclean, Rt Hon David

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Steen, Anthony

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

      Stephen, Michael

      Madel, Sir David

      Stern, Michael

      Maitland, Lady Olga

      Stewart, Allan

      Major, Rt Hon John

      Streeter, Gary

      Malone, Gerald

      Sweeney, Walter

      Mans, Keith

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Marland, Paul

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

      Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Thomason, Roy

      Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

      Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

      Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Mellor, Rt Hon David

      Thornton, Sir Malcolm

      Merchant, Piers

      Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

      Mills, Iain

      Tracey, Richard

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Tredinnick, David

      Moate, Sir Roger

      Trend, Michael

      Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector

      Trotter, Neville

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Moss, Malcolm

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Needham, Rt Hon Richard

      Viggers, Peter

      Neubert, Sir Michael

      Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Walden, George

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Waller, Gary

      Norris, Steve

      Ward, John

      Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Waterson, Nigel

      Ottaway, Richard

      Watts, John

      Page, Richard

      Wells, Bowen

      Paice, James

      Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

      Patnick, Sir Irvine

      Whitney, Ray

      Patten, Rt Hon John

      Whittingdale, John

      Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Pawsey, James

      Wiggin, Sir Jerry

      1051

      Wilkinson, John

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Willetts, David

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Wolfson, Mark

      Mr. Gyles Brandreth and

      Yeo, Tim

      Mr. Timothy Wood.

      NOES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Dobson, Frank

      Adams, Mrs Irene

      Dowd, Jim

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Allen, Graham

      Eagle, Ms Angela

      Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

      Eastham, Ken

      Armstrong, Hilary

      Etherington, Bill

      Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

      Evans, John (St Helens N)

      Ashton, Joe

      Fatchett, Derek

      Austin-Walker, John

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Barron, Kevin

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Battle, John

      Foulkes, George

      Bayley, Hugh

      Fyfe, Maria

      Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

      Galbraith, Sam

      Beggs, Roy

      Galloway, George

      Berth, Rt Hon A J

      Gapes, Mike

      Bell, Stuart

      George, Bruce

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Gerrard, Neil

      Bennett, Andrew F

      Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

      Benton, Joe

      Godsiff, Roger

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Berry, Roger

      Gordon, Mildred

      Blunkett, David

      Graham, Thomas

      Boateng, Paul

      Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

      Bradley, Keith

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

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

      Grocott, Bruce

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Gunnell, John

      Burden, Richard

      Hain, Peter

      Byers, Stephen

      Hall, Mike

      Caborn, Richard

      Hanson, David

      Callaghan, Jim

      Hardy, Peter

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Harman, Ms Harriet

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Harvey, Nick

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

      Cann, Jamie

      Henderson, Doug

      Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)

      Heppell, John

      Chidgey, David

      Hill, Keith (Streatham)

      Chisholm, Malcolm

      Hinchliffe, David

      Church, Judith

      Hodge, Margaret

      Clapham, Michael

      Hoey, Kate

      Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

      Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      Hoon, Geoffrey

      Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

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

      Clelland, David

      Howarth, George (Knowsley North)

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      Howells, Dr Kim (Pontypridd)

      Coffey, Ann

      Hoyle, Doug

      Cohen, Harry

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen North)

      Connarty, Michael

      Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

      Corbett, Robin

      Hughes, Simon (Southward)

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Hutton, John

      Corston, Jean

      Illsley, Eric

      Cousins, Jim

      Ingram, Adam

      Cox, Tom

      Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

      Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

      Jamieson, David

      Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

      Jenkins, Brian (SE Staff)

      Cunningham, Roseanna

      Johnston, Sir Russell

      Dafis, Cynog

      Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

      Darling, Alistair

      Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

      Davidson, Ian

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

      Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

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

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

      Jowell, Tessa

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

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Denham, John

      Keen, Alan

      Dewar, Donald

      Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)

      Dixon, Don

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

      1052

      Khabra, Piara S

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Radice, Giles

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Randall, Stuart

      Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

      Raynsford, Nick

      Lewis, Terry

      Reid, Dr John

      Liddell, Mrs Helen

      Rendel, David

      Livingstone, Ken

      Robertson, George (Hamilton)

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Loyden, Eddie

      Rogers, Allan

      Lynne, Ms Liz

      Rooker, Jeff

      McAllion, John

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Ross, William (E Londonderry)

      McCartney, Ian

      Rowlands, Ted

      McCartney, Robert

      Ruddock, Joan

      McFall, John

      Salmond, Alex

      McGrady, Eddie

      Sedgemore, Brian

      McKelvey, William

      Sheerman, Barry

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      McLeish, Henry

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Maclennan, Robert

      Short, Clare

      McMaster, Gordon

      Simpson, Alan

      MacShane, Denis

      Skinner, Dennis

      Maddock, Diana

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      Mahon, Alice

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

      Mandelson, Peter

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Soley, Clive

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

      Spellar, John

      Martin, Michael J (Springburn)

      Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

      Martlew, Eric

      Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

      Maxton, John

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Meacher, Michael

      Straw, Jack

      Meale, Alan

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Michael, Alun

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

      Timms, Stephen

      Milburn, Alan

      Tipping, Paddy

      Miller, Andrew

      Touhig, Don

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Trickett, Jon

      Morgan, Rhodri

      Turner, Dennis

      Morley, Elliot

      Tyler, Paul

      Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

      Vaz, Keith

      Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

      Walker, A Cecil (Belfast N)

      Mowlam, Marjorie

      Wallace, James

      Mudie, George

      Walley, Joan

      Mullin, Chris

      Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

      Murphy, Paul

      Wareing, Robert N

      Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

      Watson, Mike

      Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

      Welsh, Andrew

      O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)

      Wicks, Malcolm

      O'Brien, William (Normanton)

      Wigley, Dafydd

      O'Hara, Edward

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

      Olner, Bill

      Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

      Pearson, Ian

      Worthington, Tony

      Pendry, Tom

      Wray, Jimmy

      Pickthall, Colin

      Wright, Dr Tony

      Pike, Peter L

      Young, David (Bolton SE)

      Pope, Greg

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Mrs. Bridget Prentice and

      Purchase, Ken

      Mr. Clive Betts.

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Bill read the Third time, and passed.

      DEER (AMENDMENT) SCOTLAND) BILL [LORDS]
      Ordered,
      That the Deer (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill [Lords] may be proceeded with as if it had been certified by the Speaker as relating exclusively to Scotland.—[Mr. Knapman.]
      Order for second Reading read.
      Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 94E(2),
      That the Bill be referred to the Scottish Grand Committee.—[Mr. Knapman.]
      Question agreed to.

      SCOTTISH GRAND COMMITTEE
      Ordered,
      That—
      (1) the Order of the House [11th December] be further amended, in paragraph 8, by leaving out the words 'in Scotland on Monday 20th May' and inserting the words 'in the Glen Pavilion, Dunfermline, on Monday 20th May to take Questions for oral answer and'; and, notwithstanding the Order of the House [29th January], the Chairman shall interrupt the proceedings on Monday 20th May at half-past One o'clock; and
      (2) notwithstanding the Order of the House [29th January], at the meeting of the Scottish Grand Committee on Monday 13th May, proceedings on the substantive Motion for the Adjournment of the Committee shall lapse at One o'clock and if thereafter a Motion be made by a Minister of the Crown, pursuant to Standing Order No. 94E(3) (Scottish Grand Committee (bills in relation to their principle)) to extend the proceedings of the Committee, the Chairman shall interrupt those proceedings at Three o'clock, if not previously concluded.—[Mr. Knapman.]

      WILDLIFE BILL [MONEY]
      Queen's recommendation having been signified—
      Resolved,
      That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Wildlife Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to that Act in the sums payable out of money so provided under any other enactment.—[Mr. Knapman.]

    PETITION

      Television Broadcasts (Cyprus)
      11.28 pm
      Mr. Alan Meale: I have pleasure in presenting the petition of Mr. Andreas Karaolis of 30 Hamilton way, London N3, Mr. Anthony Mitsides of 30 Cissbury ring south, London N12, Mr. Chrisanthou Savvakis of 32 Totteridge common, London N20 and Mr. Jimmy Apostolou of 30 North crescent, London N3 and 10,000 others.
      I wish to pay tribute to the Cyprus Mail and to its chief reporter for all the work that they have done in collecting and collating the petition. The petition declares:
      that they are against the decision of the Ministry of Defence to fund in full the estimated £500,000 minimal costs associated with the scrambling of television pictures broadcast in Cyprus via Sight and Sound Vision Corporation for service men and women posted to the island. And the Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons do not introduce such costly restrictions which wouldn't be in the UK's interest in Cyprus nor is wanted amongst the large British expatriate community, other British passport holders and the majority of Cypriots who speak the English language.
      And the Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
      To lie upon the Table

      Revenue Support Grant (Essex)
      Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Knapman.]
      11.28 pm
      Mr. David Amess: The debate tonight is about local government finance, but in particular it is about the Labour and Liberal coalition on Basildon district council disgracefully wasting local council tax payers' money and, even more seriously, about the irresponsibility of Labour and Liberal-controlled Essex county council.
      I am sure that the House can understand how angry I am at the visit of the Labour leader to my constituency yesterday. There is a time-honoured convention that when an hon. Member visits another constituency, its Member of Parliament is extended the courtesy of being sent a note to advise him of the visit. I received no such note from the Labour leader. I understand that another Labour Member was also there, but he did not send me a note either. Last week, a Labour Front-Bench education spokesman was in my constituency. Again, I received no note. I ask you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to draw that discourtesy to the attention of Madam Speaker. It is disgraceful that the Leader of the Opposition failed to observe a time-honoured tradition.
      I am delighted that so many of my hon. Friends are present, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr. Newton) and my hon. Friends the Members for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns), for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman), for Castle Point (Dr. Spink), for Colchester, South and Maldon (Mr. Whittingdale) and for Romford (Sir M. Neubert). Their attendance shows the importance that Essex Members of Parliament attach to the issue.
      Mrs. Teresa Gorman: Has my hon. Friend noted the absence from the Labour Benches of the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay)?
      Mr. Amess: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point as I am advised that the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) was the Labour Member who visited my constituency yesterday together with rent-a-mob; yet he could not take the trouble to turn up for this debate.
      The Labour leader was in my constituency supposedly as a boost to the local government elections. He was quoted in a newspaper today commenting on myself:
      "Basildon is an interesting place in which to have our local election campaign since it is the seat of a Conservative MP who has now decided to go elsewhere. I think that what that indicates is that the degree to which Essex man and Essex woman is coming over to today's Labour Party."
      When my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister visited my constituency two years ago, I did not telephone people asking them to greet him. My right hon. Friend came to visit the hospital without my gathering any crowds for him. I have received reports of the scenes in my constituency yesterday. Labour Members gathered together groups of Labour activists to surround the Labour leader. Even worse, known socialist activists were going up to the right hon. Gentleman on camera and in front of local newspaper reporters, pretending that they had been lifelong Conservatives but would vote Labour in the next

      1055
      election. The House deplores that sort of manipulation of the media. The Labour leader was supposed to be addressing—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. The hon. Gentleman has had a real old go. Perhaps he will return to the subject of the debate.
      Mr. Amess: The Labour leader was supposed to be addressing the revenue support grant settlement in my constituency, but he did not do so because Labour activists do not want to fight the election on local issues. If they did, they would stand condemned. One has only to consider the disgraceful irresponsibility of Labour and Liberal-controlled Basildon district council. It is only a year since those two parties jumped into bed together. After just 12 months, Basildon district council's finances are in a complete mess. The council has increased expenditure by rebuilding its empire of area management and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay knows, has taken on 100 extra staff. It has refused to reduce its budget by £500,000 to cut out some of the unnecessary expenditure. It has spent almost all—I know that my hon. Friend the Minister will be interested in this—the council's reserves once again, which three years of Conservative management had built up. In 1996–97, it is using up £3.6 million from the general reserves, to leave an estimated £300,000 by 31 March 1997. On top of that, it is also using £505,000 from the direct service organisation reserve fund.
      Mrs. Gorman: Is it not the case that when the Conservative party took over Basildon council a couple of years ago the council had massive debts of about £20 million and that the Conservative administration, in a period of two years, not only got to grips with that but was able to reduce the council tax for the first time in living memory by £45 in the first year?
      Mr. Amess: My hon. Friend is entirely right. What has happened is a disgrace. For three years our wonderful Conservative district councillors worked hard to restore pride in Basildon district, which consists of my constituency and that of my hon. Friend. When the Conservatives took over from Labour in 1992, as my hon. Friend pointed out, we were faced with the problem of Labour having been capped in seven out of eight years. Labour set an illegal budget of £27 million. Council balances were virtually zero. We were faced with the problems of having to reduce expenditure to produce a legal budget.
      In terms of the revenue support grant settlement, the Government have been very generous to Basildon district council. It is a disgrace, when one reads the rubbish that is being put through people's doors at the moment, that Labour and Liberal activists are trying to claim credit for things that have been given to them by the very generous RSG settlement set by the Government. All the good things that are happening in Basildon district council—I am delighted to see another Essex colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich (Mr. Sproat)—are entirely the responsibility of the previous Conservative-controlled council and have nothing to do with the present council.
      1056
      I put this point to my hon. Friend the Minister when we considered the RSG settlement. Local residents need to know why the present chief executive of Basildon district council replaced the previous one. What money from the RSG settlement was spent on that exercise? More serious, what happened to the previous chief executive? Why was there a change? Why have officers who were sacked been reinstated?
      What about the money that has been given to refurbish housing estates? It is all thanks to the Government. It has nothing whatever to do with the local district council.
      Mr. John Whittingdale: Before my hon. Friend leaves Basildon district council's record, is he aware that this year, once again, Maldon district council—the only Conservative-controlled council in Essex—will be setting the lowest council tax in Essex, while Basildon is setting the second highest, second only to Harlow? Does that not send a message to every voter in Thursday's local elections?
      Mr. Amess: My hon. Friend is right to point out the effect that his council has had in using its RSG settlement compared with that of Basildon district council and Essex county council. Essex county council is run by the Labour and Liberal associations. Both those parties tell us that they are caring parties. I have to tell the House that what they have done to residents throughout Essex is absolutely wicked.
      Let us take the fire service. Never before have we experienced cuts such as those that have been made in the past year. More than £1 million has been cut from the service, despite the generous revenue support grant settlement. We cannot even recruit any extra firemen this year. That has affected all the constituencies in Essex. It is a disgrace that Labour and Liberal activists are going around with petitions—not condemning their own county councillors, but attempting to blame Essex. While all that is going on, Essex county council is sitting on more than £125 million. That is disgraceful.
      This year's library budget has been cut by £1 million, and as a result no new books can be purchased in Essex this year. That is a cruel thing to do to our schoolchildren, and a cruel thing to do to our senior citizens, who depend very much on the library service. And it is all a result of the failure of the Labour and Liberal parties on Essex county council to react favourably to the generous revenue support grant settlement.
      Furthermore, the education budget has been cut by £3.5 million. All Essex Members know what has gone on in the past year. First, Labour and Liberal councillors did not take advantage of the voucher system for nurseries. We could have had a pilot scheme in Essex and all our constituents could have taken advantage of it, but for doctrinaire reasons and reasons of political correctness those councillors opted out.
      Then there are the magnificent grammar schools and the magnificent selective system that we have throughout Essex. What have Labour and Liberal county councillors voted to do? They have voted to withdraw the transport facilities of which many of our less well-off constituents have taken advantage. I call that cruel. They have also conducted a wicked, pernicious campaign against grant-maintained schools. In Southend, West, for instance, we have the largest primary school in Essex—

      1057
      Westborough school, which has nearly 700 pupils. That school has been penalised in terms of its budget settlement, just because it is grant-maintained.
      Essex county council stands condemned in many other respects. The highways and transport budget has been cut by £1.3 million, there are no more grants for rubbish skips in rural areas, and there have been cuts in money delegated to district councils and in public transport grants. Furthermore, social services have been cut by £4.5 million. That includes an underspend of £2 million in the current year. But the council claims that it is underfunded, and still wants to spend £35,000 a year on a public relations person.
      I am sick to death of the way the Government have been blamed unfairly for everything and anything. Someone who stands for a district council seat, is elected and ends up controlling affairs should accept responsibility for his actions. Labour and Liberal-controlled Basildon district council is responsible for the financial mess in which my constituents, and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay, now find themselves.
      People who stand in a council election, are elected and then discover that they are in control of Essex county council—which is now run by the Labour and Liberal parties—must accept full responsibility for their actions. Those parties have cruelly cut budgets that there was no reason to cut, and all our constituents are suffering as a result of their failure to draw on their huge reserves. There is a world of difference between a local authority drawing on huge reserves and what we find in Basildon, Southend and other local authorities, where there are very small reserves.
      Mr. Whittingdale: Is my hon. Friend aware that while Essex county council has been imposing the savage cuts that he has described, a Labour county councillor has run up travel expenses of £33,000? Is that not outrageous? Does it not give a sense of the priorities that Labour party members attach to expenditure—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess) has tried very hard to stick to the subject of the revenue support grant settlement for Basildon district council and Essex county council, so I hope that he will contain his remarks.
      Mr. Amess: I will certainly not be drawn. I merely say that I know that my hon. Friend represents a large constituency, but I did not realise that it was so large that one could run up £33,000 in travel expenses. That is quite remarkable.
      I have been castigated by the Opposition for all manner of reasons following our success in the 1992 general election. My smile has been referred to. The only reason why I smiled on 9 April 1992 was that the media had been told by the Labour party to gather to watch me lose my seat. At least I knew what I was smiling about. Labour politicians go round blandly smiling at cameras all the time yet do not tell us what their policies are. I have been able to give the House an example of what the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats do when they are given power.
      My Labour opponent and my Liberal opponent, who is a county councillor, have never stopped blubbing since I defeated them in the general election. They need to defend
      1058
      the revenue support grant settlement. I notice that the leader of the Labour party on Basildon district council has said:
      "The interests of Basildon have never been completely served by Essex County Council because county councillors come mainly from the north of the county and do not understand our district."
      Goodness—and the county is run by the Labour and Liberal parties. The Labour candidate in the new part-Basildon, part-Thurrock constituency is a Labour county councillor. What is going on is ridiculous.
      A historic moment occurred on Saturday. My hon. Friend the Member for Romford will draw some solace from what happened. The borough of Havering castigated the decision of my family and me concerning the education of my children, which is important to the RSG settlement. The Liberal deputy mayor of Havering council has since announced that he has left the Liberals and joined the Conservative party, and is advising all sensible Liberals to vote Conservative in the election on 2 May. I hope that not only all sensible Liberals but all sensible Labour party activists will vote Conservative on 2 May.
      11.49 pm
      Dr. Robert Spink rose—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. My tolerance knows no bounds, but if the hon. Gentleman is hoping to catch my eye, I hope that he is going to tell us something about the revenue support grant concerning Basildon district council and Essex county council.
      Dr. Spink: I am grateful for your advice, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am pleased to be able to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess), who covered the major issues on Essex county council's application of the revenue support grant in Basildon with great passion and great force of argument.
      I want to cover the impact of Essex county council's application of the RSG on my constituents in Castle Point. I believe that Labour and Liberal councillors are failing to serve the people of Essex as well as Conservative councillors would in the use of RSG. For instance, they have made cuts of £4,000 in the flood warning system, which might not seem a lot of money, but to people who live on Canvey island it is a significant factor. Labour and Liberal councillors have made cuts of more than £1 million in the fire service, as we have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon. Those cuts were not forced on them by the Government. The councillors made the cuts by their own decision. It is disgraceful that they should make such cuts, particularly in view of the massive reserves that they are sitting on. They do not seek to defend the people of Essex properly.
      The Labour council fails to serve the elderly people of Essex through the social services committee. The funding for that committee through the R SG has been increased since 1992 from £84 million to £194 million—more than double. Yet the level of care for people in the community, particularly the elderly, appears to my constituents to be declining. They do not know quite why that should be, but I can tell them why it is: it is because the Labour and Liberal councillors misapply the funds that they are given by the Government. They do not use the funds in a proper manner. They follow politically correct schemes.

      1059
      They waste money. They send children away on foreign holidays when those children are caught thieving or breaking the law in other ways.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Basildon explained how Labour and Liberal councillors were attacking our schools and schoolchildren. Let me explain how they are attacking children in my constituency. In Hadleigh they are trying to remove the school playing field from the children simply because that school became grant-maintained, presumably so that they can sell off the field and get more money to help reduce their RSG.
      I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to raise a few small points. They are points that bear heavily on my constituents, who will make the decision to throw out the county council in the elections in 1997 and to return a Conservative administration.
      11.51 pm
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Sir Paul Beresford): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess). I always enjoy the opportunity to hear him rightfully hammering the Labour and Liberal parties in Essex, and particularly in Basildon. This evening is quite an event, because we have here my right hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr. Newton) and my hon. Friends the Members for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns), for Colchester, South and Maldon (Mr. Whittingdale), for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman), for Castle Point (Dr. Spink), for Harwich (Mr. Sproat) and for Romford (Sir M. Neubert).
      One Essex Member who is always so conspicuous is conspicuous by his absence this evening—the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay). His absence is unusual, and probably significant. He could not stand the fire that would be poured upon him. It is his colleagues who are making such a mess, having recently taken over in Basildon, and stringing along with the Liberals in Essex.
      My hon. Friends are right. It is a classic example of what happens when the Liberal and Labour parties take over local authorities. The wish list comes out. They indulge in spendthrift activities. They seem to judge quality by the amount of other people's money they can spend.
      We accept—the point was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon—that Basildon has needs. Out of the 274 district councils, it ranks 50th. Its standard spending assessment is £16.5 million. Its budgeted spending is 45.8 per cent. above SSA. That is staggering. I believe it is irresponsible. Basildon under Conservative control managed to produce much better services at much reduced cost. Local councillors need to face some very awkward questions. They obviously have not done so.
      1060
      One example that my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon touched on was staffing. According to the figures that I picked up, the staffing in Basildon is 21 per cent. above the family average. That is amazing. To try to fund some of that expenditure, it has virtually no reserves. In fact, on my figures, it has no reserves. It will be interesting to see what the auditor has to say if that is the position.
      I am afraid that I cannot give my hon. Friend an answer on the musical chairs among the chief executives. It makes an interesting story, and one wonders whether there are cupboards full of them which the council pulls out and puts back in again at the appropriate moment.
      The point was made in the debate that Maldon, a Conservative authority close by, faces the same difficulties and receives less SSA and RSG, yet manages to provide services to a high quality and at a lower cost to the local people.
      I turn now to Essex county council. Again, there is staggering incompetence. It ranks ninth out of the 35 equivalent authorities. It has huge reserves. Despite that, and the fact that its RSG has gone up by 4.7 per cent., giving it another £32.141 million of central taxpayers' money, it has still managed to put a staggering load on local people by increasing their council tax bills.
      The point has been made time and again that the Government recognise the importance of education. Essex county council's standard spending assessment for education went up by 4.9 per cent., but the Labour council has different wish lists. I understand that it has shifted some of that money elsewhere and not spent it on education. That was explained to us. Bearing it in mind that some hon. Members here are school governors in the region or parents with pupils, that is recognised in the House as an appalling move. At the very moment when all hon. Members are saying that we need an improvement in education, Essex county council shifts the money elsewhere.
      Like every other Labour authority, Essex county council has had its wish list. If it cannot fulfil it, it calls it cuts. That is straight fraud. We want local authorities to recognise the importance of having a tight economy. We need to have public expenditure down and the quality of services up. Twenty-five per cent. of public expenditure is by local authorities. They must do their part, and it is obvious that the Labour party in Basildon and the Labour and Liberal parties in Essex are failing to do that.
      There is a simple supermarket-type motto: we need more services, we need better services, but at less cost. I hope that, on Thursday, voters in Essex and in Basildon will recognise that at last, and throw these clowns out.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Adjourned accordingly at four minutes to Twelve midnight.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Cyprus
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the estimated number of Turkish Cypriots in Cyprus living in the area to the south of the UN-patrolled buffer zone; what are current trends in the number; and if he will make a statement. [27152]

  Mr. David Davis
  The UN Secretary-General's report of 10 December 1995 on the UN operation in Cyprus states that 362 Turkish Cypriots located in the southern part of Cyprus have made themselves known to United Nations forces in Cyprus personnel. We support the call in UN Security Council resolution 789 for a Cyprus-wide census under the auspices of the United Nations.

  Land Mines
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 23 April,Official Report, column 84, what is his Department's assessment of the effect of Her Majesty's Government's decision to modernise their stock of anti-personnel mines on the prospects of achieving an international agreement banning all anti-personnel mines. [27323]

  Mr. David Davis
  We are committed to pursuing a total ban on anti-personnel land mines. We shall as soon as possible destroy nearly half of our existing stocks of anti-personnel land mines. We intend to destroy the remainder when an international ban is agreed, or when viable alternatives become available. In the meantime, should it become necessary to replace any of the remaining mines, we shall do so only with self-destruct mines. We have taken no final decision to procure any new anti-personnel mines. We shall continue to pursue the policy which, in our view, offers the best prospect of addressing the terrible consequences for innocent civilians of the irresponsible use of anti-personnel land mines.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 23 April,Official Report, column 84, how the Government plan to pursue an international agreement on banning all non-self-destructing anti-personnel mines. [27320]

  Mr. Davis
  We are committed to pursuing a total international ban on all anti-personnel mines and, as an interim measure, will also work for a ban on non-self-destructing mines. We shall consider how best to proceed, in concert with allies and partners who share our objectives, in the light of the conclusion of the UN weaponry convention review conference, which is currently in progress in Geneva.
  418
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 23 April,Official Report, column 84, what is his Department's policy towards sharing self-destruct technology with those countries who currently export non-self-destruct anti-personnel mines to help them switch production to self-destruct anti-personnel mines. [27324]

  Mr. Davis
  Our aim is to bring about the elimination of all anti-personnel land mines as soon as it is practicable, and in the short term to eliminate particularly non-self-destruct mines which are the most dangerous to civilians. We have also announced a total moratorium on the export of all anti-personnel land mines to all destinations. We shall be guided by these factors in considering any sharing of mine-related technology with any country.

PRIME MINISTER

  Ministerial Visit (Gosport)
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will pay an official visit to Gosport. [25708]

  The Prime Minister
  I have at present no plans to do so.

  Department of Transport
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the future role of the Department of Transport. [26903]

  The Prime Minister
  The "Transport Report 1996", Command Paper 3206, which was published on 25 March, sets out the Department of Transport's overall objectives and priorities for the immediate future.

  Nuclear Safety and Security Summit
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 22 April to the hon. Member for Reading, West (Sir A. Durant)Official Report, columns 18–19, if he will publish (a) the financial commitments made to the Ukraine to close down and clean up the Chernobyl reactors by (i) the United Kingdom and (ii) the G7 and (b) the timetable over which these commitments are made. [27348]

  The Prime Minister
  The memorandum of understanding signed in December 1995 between the Ukraine, the G7 countries and the European Commission provides for the closure of Chernobyl within the framework of a comprehensive assistance programme for Ukraine's energy sector. The MOU committed assistance to some $500 million in grants and to $1.8 billion in projected investments. To date, the United Kingdom has contributed over £16 million for Chernobyl-related projects and assistance with energy sector restructuring.

  Mr. Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister what estimates he has made of the cost to the United Kingdom of(a) additional health monitoring, (b) nuclear installations safety reviews, (c) compensation for loss of trade to the

  419
  United Kingdom and (d) other costs of the Chernobyl accident of 1986. [27386]

  The Prime Minister
  No central estimate has been made of the cost of the United Kingdom of additional health monitoring of the Chernobyl accident. Direct costs which can be identified amount to around some £13 million for compensation paid to sheep farmers and environmental monitoring projects. In addition, over a 10-year period, £33 million will have been invested in the Government's radioactive incident monitoring network.

  Prince of Wales's Consent
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Prime Minister in what circumstances the Prince of Wales's consent is needed for a Bill. [26043]

  The Prime Minister
  Bills whose provisions affect the hereditary revenues, personal property or interests of the Duchy of Cornwall require the consent of the Prince of Wales to be signified in both Houses before they are passed. The same would apply to any Bill which affected the interest of the Prince of Wales in his capacity as Prince and Steward of Scotland.

  Engagements
  Sir Peter Tapsell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 30 April. [26044]

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 30 April. [26045]

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

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Performance Targets
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what are the key performance targets for the Court Service, Her Majesty's Land Registry, the Public Record Office and Public Trust Office for 1996–97. [27708]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  The following tables set out the key performance targets that the Lord Chancellor has set for the Court Service, Her Majesty's Land Registry, the Public Record Office and the Public Trust Office for 1996–97.

  Court Service Key performance targets 1996–97

  Indicator

  Target

  Quality of service:

  1. Percentage of courts and offices meeting all charter for court users standards

  95 per cent.

  Supreme court:

  2. Percentage of administrative process dealt with within target time

  95 per cent.

  Crown court:

  3. Percentage of defendants committed for trail waiting 16 weeks or less

  75 per cent.

  420

  Court Service Key performance targets 1996–97

  Indicator

  Target

  County courts:

  4. Percentage of administrative process dealt with within target time

  92 per cent.

  Enforcement:

  5. Number of warrants paid as a percentage of correctly directed warrants

  70 per cent.

  Unit costs:

  6. Unit cost of a productive courtroom hour (Crown court)

  £522.55

  7. Unit cost of an hour of administrative work as measured by the business management system (county courts)

  £49.92

  Cost recovery:

  8. Percentage of the cost of civil courts recovered

  86 per cent.

  Fuller details of the agency's targets are given in its business plan which is available from the Court Service Headquarters.

  Her Majesty's Land Registry Executive Agency Key performance targets 1996–97

  Indicator

  Target

  Financial

  Return on average capital employed1 (ROCE):

  3 per cent.

  External financing limit:

  £0

  Efficiency

  Cost per unit in real terms3

  £27.84—a 3 per cent. reduction over the 1995–96 target of £28.70

  Cost per unit in cash terms:

  £30.82

  Productivity

  Unit output per post (per day):

  3.34 units—a 4.1 per cent. increase over the 1995–96 target of 3.202 units

  Citizen's charter standards Percentage of pre-completion applications handled in two working days at every district land registry:

  Not less than 98.5 per cent.

  Average processing time for post-completion applications at every district land registry:

  Where no requisitions arise, no more than 15 working days.

  Percentage of registrations handled free of error at every district land registry:

  Not less than 98 per cent.

  Development of land registration

  Number of computerised titles:

  To increase the number of registered titles in computerised format to 14 million.

  Number of title plans:

  To increase the number of title plans in computerised format to 0.3 million.

  Number of account holders using direct computer access at end of year:

  400 account holders

  1 ROCE below 6 per cent. reflects agreement with HM Treasury to apply surplus income generated in 1993–95, when ROCE exceeded 25 per cent. in each year to fee reductions in 1996–99.

  2 The real term unit cost in the base year, of 1992–93 was £30.65. Fuller details of the registry's performance targets are given in its business plan, which is available from Her Majesty's Land Registry.

  421

  Public Record Office Key performance targets 1996–97

  Indicator

  Target

  1. Efficiency

  Unit costs of key activities:

  (a) record accessions

  Reduce by 3.4 per cent. to £2.99

  (b) providing record storage space per linear metre

  Reduce by 14.6 per cent. to £60.70

  (c) making documents available to users per document

  Reduce by 0.9 per cent. to £5.99

  (d) providing census reader services per reader visit

  Reduce by 4.86 per cent. to £4.03

  (e) providing document reader services per reader visit

  Limit increase to 7.01 per cent., i.e. to £41.54

  (f) providing remote user information services per contact

  Reduce by 3.79 per cent. to £42.20

  Backlog of records reported by Departments as being over 30 years old and awaiting review

  Reduce by 1, 000 metres

  The timely destruction of records not worthy of preservation

  Departments to have in place key features of records management, as specified in the PRO Manual of Records Administration

  Provision of acceptable storage conditions, i.e. meeting the preservation and environmental standards recommended by BS 5454: 1989 Recommendations for storage and exhibition of archival documents BSI, 1989.

  Increase the proportion of records stored to the standards from 87.75 per cent. to 87.85 per cent.

  Management efficiency in running support services and projects

  Reduce the running costs of the office's support services as a proportion of overall running costs from 11.2 per cent. to 9.8 per cent.

  2. Quality of service

  Citizen's charter standards

  Achieve all charter standard targets1

  3. Effectiveness

  Performance in achieving specified milestones towards strategic objectives

  (i) complete new Public Record Office project at Kew

  (ii) review operation of the public records system

  (iii) increase revenue by 10 per cent.

  1 Subject to specified modifications during period of major building works and moves of records.

  Fuller details of the office's targets are given in its business plan, which is available from the Public Record Office.

  Public Trust Office Executive Agency Key performance targets 1996–97

  Indicator

  Target

  1. To carry out accounting transactions within target times

  To bring to account at least 98 per cent. of receipts and payments transactions within turnaround targets

  2. To achieve investment targets

  (a) to pay annually not less than the rate provided by the average of a model set of comparators for special and basic rate at 75 per cent. of special rate

  (b) on an annual basis to ensure that 85 per cent. of all measured funds perform in line or better than their model based on stock market indices

  422

  Public Trust Office Executive Agency Key performance targets 1996–97

  Indicator

  Target

  (c) on a three-year rolling basis to ensure that 80 per cent. of all measured funds perform in line or better than their model based on stock market indices

  3. To achieve Charter Standards

  To achieve 98 per cent. of charter standards

  4. To achieve unit costs in activity areas

  To reduce overall unit costs so that the target for 1996–97 will be at least 2.75 per cent. lower than the target for 1995–96 (adjusted for inflation)

  5. Percentage of full costs recovered

  To ensure that 100 per cent. of full costs are recovered

  Fuller details of the office's performance targets are given in its business plan, which is available from the Public Trust Office.

ENVIRONMENT

  Water Supplies
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what powers he has to ensure that the water companies take steps to guarantee uninterrupted water supplies this summer. [25688]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  Under the Water Industry Act 1991 the Secretary of State—or the Director General of Water Services—may make enforcement orders requiring a company to take specific actions in order to secure compliance with any statutory or other requirement enforceable under the Act. One such duty, under section 37, is that water companies must develop and maintain an efficient and economical system of water supply within their area and make supplies available to persons who demand them.

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he is taking to monitor the future availability of water supplies. [25692]

  Mr. Jones
  My Department commissioned a series of reports from the National Rivers Authority on the water resource situation and prospects for supplies in England and Wales. A further report, from the Environment Agency, is expected to be published on 1 May.

  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what voluntary leakage reduction target each water company has set over the next five and 10 years; [27164]

  (2) if he will publish water company leakage rates on a quarterly basis at times of water shortage. [27165]

  Mr. Clappison
  The water service companies' current targets for reducing leakage are summarised in the table. The Director General of Water Services is involved in on-going discussions with companies about the adequacy and consistency of these targets. There are not plans to publish leakage rates quarterly.
  423

  Water Service Company Leakage Targets

  Anglian Water

  Aim to reduce leakage to around10 per cent. by the year 2000

  Dwr Cymru

  Aim to achieve a reduction of over a third by the year 2000

  Northumbrian Water

  Aim to reduce leakage to 15 per cent. in the coming years

  North West Water

  Aim to reduce leakage to 22 per cent. by the year 2000

  Severn Trent Water

  Aim to reduce leakage to 12 per cent. over the next five years

  Southern Water

  Aim to reduce levels to 10 per cent. by the year 2000

  South West Water

  Aim to reduce leakage to 15 per cent. by the year 2000

  Thames Water

  Aim to halve leakage by 2005

  Wessex Water1

  Aim to achieve 15 per cent. leakage by the 2005

  Yorkshire Water

  Aim to reduce leakage to 60M1/d by 1998 and to 20 per cent. in the longer term

  Source:

  Water Services Association April 1996.

  1 October 1995.

  Mrs. Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what additional investment each water company approved in the past six months to respond to the present shortage of rainfall [27167]

  Mr. Clappison
  During the latter part of 1995 and the first four months of 1996, the privatised water and sewerage companies have announced additional investment of more than £400 million in developing water resources and improving the distribution network. Figures for individual companies are as follows:

  £ million

  Anglian Water

  10

  Dwr Cymru

  10

  Northumbrian Water

  3

  North West Water

  53

  Severn Trent Water

  100

  Southern Water

  32

  South West Water

  20

  Thames Water

  35

  Yorkshire Water

  171

  Wessex Water

  5

  Unified Business Rate
  Dr. Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the impact on small businesses of his policy to give transitional relief on the unified business rate. [25689]

  Mr. Gummer
  In 1995–96, the transitional arrangements benefited 815,000 small business premises compared with 315,000 large properties. This represents a saving to small businesses of nearly £380 million. Over the period 1995 to 2000, small businesses are expected to benefit by about £1.35 billion from transition.

  District Auditor Service
  Mr. Khabra
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what discussions he has had with the Controller of the Audit Commission on the district auditor service. [25690]

  Mr. Curry
  No such discussions have been held, but Ministers meet the chairman and members of the commission informally from time to time.

  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he last met local authority leaders to discuss Government contribution to local authority spending. [25693]

  Mr. Curry
  I last met local authority leaders specifically to discuss the financing of local authority revenue expenditure on 15 January. My most recent meeting with chairmen of the local authority associations was on 23 April.

  Local Authority Spending
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what has been the percentage increase in expenditure by local authorities between 1992–93 and the 1996–97 budgeted figures. [25691]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The increase in local authority budgeted expenditure from 1992–93 to 1996–97 is estimated at 9.3 per cent.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to change the basis on which local authorities are authorised to make grants to(a) sporting and (b) other bodies; and if he will make a statement. [26046]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  We have no plans to change the basis on which local authorities are authorised to make such grants.

  Mr. Berry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement of the rules governing the use of funds paid to a company by a local authority for the provision of services, with particular reference to the use of such funds to prepare bids to provide similar services for other local authorities. [27447]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  Where a company carries out work for a local authority it is for that company to determine how it uses the income from the contract.

  Rural White Paper
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many copies of the rural White Paper have been sold to date. [25694]

  Mr. Gummer
  Since the publication of the White Paper, "Rural England" in October 1995, some 7,200 copies have been sold.

  Local Education Authorities
  Ms Coffey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent representations he has received concerning the allocation of funds to local education authorities. [25695]
  425
  Sir Paul Beresford
  The Secretary of State received 143 written representations from local education authorities and, with ministerial colleagues, met delegations from 44 local education authorities during the formal consultation period.

  Capital Challenge
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what submissions he has received from local authority leaders concerning capital challenge. [25696]

  Mr. Curry
  Two hundred and twelve responses have been received from local authorities and local authority associations and 36 have been received from other bodies.

  Good Landlord Registration Scheme
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he is taking to promote a good landlords registration scheme. [25697]

  Mr. Clappison
  We believe that a compulsory national registration scheme would impose an unnecessary regulatory burden on landlords and local authorities, and unnecessary costs. Research shows that the majority of tenants have a good relationship with their landlord.

  We actively encourage local authorities through the housing investment programme to work with private landlords to make the most effective use of the local housing stock and to provide good quality accommodation. We believe authorities should have the flexibility to develop initiatives which best meet local needs and problems.

  Local authorities have a range of enforcement powers to take action against landlords who provide accommodation which does not meet fitness standards. Proposals in the Housing Bill will strengthen local authorities' powers to deal with the particular problems in houses in multiple occupation.

  Anti-social Tenants
  Sir John Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to help local authorities deal with anti-social tenants. [25698]

  Mr. Curry
  The Government have included in the Housing Bill a substantial package of measures to help local authorities to deal more effectively with anti-social tenants. We have also issued guidance to all local authorities to help them make better use of the court system when evicting troublemakers.

  Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on improvement in energy efficiency in the domestic, industrial and transport sectors of the economy since 1970. [25699]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  My Department actively promotes energy efficiency through a wide range of initiatives across all sectors, including information and advice, voluntary schemes, and selective use of grants, incentives and regulation. My Department's recent publication, "Sustainable Development Indicators", shows 426
  that primary energy consumption in the UK has remained fairly constant since 1970, despite the 60 per cent. rise in gross domestic product. The UK expects carbon dioxide emissions to be 4 to 8 per cent. below 1990 levels by the year 2000.

  Built Environment (London)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals he has to improve the built environment in London. [25700]

  Mr. Gummer
  My over-arching objective is to raise the standard of urban design in London, as elsewhere in the country. I have a number of initiatives in hand to achieve this.

  I shall shortly be publishing "Strategic Guidance for London Planning Authorities", which has a chapter devoted to policies to protect and improve the quality of London's environment to ensure that the capital maintains its attractiveness and competitiveness.

  Similarly, "Strategic Guidance for the Thames" will increase awareness of the importance of raising design standards in the sensitive river corridor and will contain a set of design principles which local planning authorities will be required to take account of when considering development proposals.

  Earlier this year, the Government office for London published a research document on London's urban environment, "Planning for Quality", which identifies the principal components of urban quality and illustrates how they can be enhanced as planning policies are developed.

  This is all part of the wider quality in town and country initiative that I launched last year, which seeks to encourage debate and action about what government and others can do to achieve quality in the built environment. Out of this grew last summer's urban design campaign to promote greater consideration of design issues at local level. Out of 21 schemes being supported by my Department nationwide, two are in London-at Borough market and Wimbledon town centre. They will feature in a major exhibition on urban design later this year and the results will help to inform the preparation of good practice on design.

  My Department is also reviewing existing planning policy guidance on design in the context of a general review of planning policy guidance note No. 1.

  Mine Water Discharges
  Sir Cranley Onslow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he has taken to ensure that the criteria employed by the Environment Agency in deciding how many cases of mine water discharges in England and Wales should be selected for remediation funding are consistent with the EC limits set out in the freshwater fisheries directive. [26880]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  I am advised that some of the chemical parameters set out in the Fresh Water for Fish Directive, 78/659/EEC, are used by the Environment Agency in assessing the state of waters affected by discharges from abandoned coal mines.
  427
  Sir Cranley Onslow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will obtain from the Environment Agency a copy of the full list of sites of mine water discharges in England and Wales which were considered for possible remediation funding, together with the criteria used in the decision as to the cases to be put forward; and if he will place the list in the Library. [26881]

  Mr. Jones
  So far as mine water discharges from coal mines are concerned, the Environment Agency has considered a large number of sites affected by mine water discharges, using the following criteria:

  Biological impact

  Area biologically affected

  Area visually affected

  Length visually affected

  Substrate quality

  Iron deposition

  Total iron downstream of discharge

  pH, dissolved oxygen levels and aluminium concentration.

  As a result of the application of these criteria, 35 sites have been identified for further study in order to consider the practicability and cost of potential remedial work. I am arranging for a list of these sites to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Out-of-town Superstores
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he will announce his decision with regard to the planning proposals for four out-of-town-centre food superstores at Daventry, Northamptonshire. [27388]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  I expect to be able to issue decisions shortly.

  House Building
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he last met representatives of the house building industry to discuss house building in England; and if he will make a statement. [26129]

  Mr. Clappison
  The Secretary of State met members of the volume housebuilders study group on 13 February 1996. This was followed by more detailed discussions with the chairman of the group. In addition, my hon. Friend the Minister for Planning, Construction and Energy Efficiency and I hold regular meetings with representatives of the construction industry including, where appropriate, those from the housebuilding industry.

  There were 135, 700 private housing starts in 1995; that is 13 per cent. higher than in 1992, which was the lowest point in the recent housebuilding cycle. In the three months to February 1996, starts rose 6 per cent. compared with the previous three months. Mortgage interest rates are now at their lowest for nearly 30 years and house purchase is unusually affordable. The Government believe that there is every reason to have confidence in the present and future health of the housing market.

  Environment Agency
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the role of the board of the Environment Agency and its regional committees. [26358]

  Mr. Clappison
  The board is directly responsible to Ministers for all aspects of the agency's organisation and performance. We expect the board to ensure that the agency fulfils its statutory duties and to ensure propriety, regularity, economy, efficiency and effectiveness in the operation of the organisation.

  Within each of its regions, the agency is required to establish an environment protection advisory committee and a fisheries advisory committee and to consult them about the manner in which it carries out relevant functions in the regions.

  Each region also has one or more flood defence committee, which are responsible for carrying out all the agency's flood defence functions other than the issuing of levies, making drainage charges or borrowing money.

  Channel Tunnel Rail Link
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn) of 18 March,Official Report, column 9, on the establishment of an interdepartmental working group in respect of perceived blight (a) what is the membership of the group, (b) when it is due to report to him, (c) when its findings will be published, (d) what representations will be allowed from local authorities and affected residents and (e) if it will take into account views expressed by any Select Committee of the House of Lords on the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Bill. [27105]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The interdepartmental working group on blight is chaired by the head of the Department of the Environment planning directorate. The membership of the group is drawn from the Departments for Education and Employment, the Environment, National Heritage, Trade and Industry and Transport and the Ministries of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and of Defence, Her Majesty's Treasury, the Welsh and Scottish Offices, the Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland, the Highways Agency, the Prison Service, NHS Estates and the Valuation Office.

  The working group will circulate a paper shortly summarising the main issues for consideration and inviting comments. A copy will be placed in the Library. Until we see what evidence is submitted and are able to analyse the options that may arise, it is premature to say when a final report will be submitted, but the working group will proceed as quickly as possible and I have already undertaken that there will be a progress report in September.

  Evidence from affected residents, local authorities or other interested parties is welcome at any time through one of the professional bodies or interest groups, or direct to the working group. Representations should be sent to the secretary, room C16/08a, 2 Marsham street, London SW1P 3EB.

  The working group will, of course, take full account of all views expressed by any Select Committee of the House of Lords on the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Bill, alongside

  429
  those already expressed by the Select Committee in the House of Commons and by hon. Members during the Commons Standing Committee on the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Bill.

  Butterfly, Bat and Toad Habitat
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what new proposals he has to improve the habitats of butterflies, bats and toads. [25682]

  Mr. Clappison
  The biodiversity steering group, chaired by my Department, with members drawn from all sectors, published its findings on 13 December 1995. "Biodiversity: The UK Steering Group Report", identifies some 25 butterfly, 15 bat and two toad species whose populations should be monitored where possible. The report includes costed action plans for seven of the butterflies, three of the bats and one of the toads and recommends that costed action plans for a further three butterflies, one bat and one toad be produced within three years.

  In addition, many of the species concerned would benefit from the proposals for costed action plans for 14 key habitats included in the report and the recommendation that costed plans for a further 24 key habitats be produced within three years.

  The Government intend to publish their response to the report shortly.

  Home Energy Efficiency Scheme
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how may householders are currently on a waiting list for assistance under the home energy efficiency scheme; how long he estimates it will take for these householders to have work under the scheme carried out; and if he will make a statement. [27556]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  I estimate that installers now have, on average, about 36 weeks' work from the 310,000 expressions of interest recorded by Eaga Ltd, the scheme managers. The queue will be tackled efficiently to return average waiting times to the lengths for which the scheme is rightly well regarded.

  Council Tax (Kingswood)
  Mr. Berry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was(a) the total sum, (b) the amount paid to Kingswood borough council, (c) the percentage of the total paid to Kingswood borough council and (d) the amount paid per dwelling in Bristol, in transitional relief in respect of the council tax in each year from 1993–94 to 1995–96. [27450]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The information requested is as follows:

  (a) Total amount of transitional relief

  1993–94: £378,652,826

  1994–95: £111,283,108

  1995–96: £27,178,179(1)

  (b) Amount of transitional relief paid to Kingswood borough council

  1993–94: £164,456

  1994–95: £28,416

  1995–96: £6,125(1)

  430

  (c) Percentage of total amount of transitional relief paid to Kingswood borough council

  1993–94: 0.04 per cent.

  1994–95: 0.02 per cent.

  1995–96: 0.02 per cent.(1)

  (d) Amount paid per chargeable dwelling in Kingswood

  1993–94: £4.59

  1994–95: £0.78

  1995–96: £0.16(1)

  These figures are averages. The actual amount of transitional relief varied according to a household's council tax banding, its composition and its previous liability for community charge.

  (1)Information for 1995–96 is provisional and is subject to final grant claims to be made during 1996–97.

  Council Tax (Bristol)
  Mr. Berry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was(a) the total sum, (b) the amount paid to Bristol city council, (c) the percentage of the total paid to Bristol city council, and (d) the amount paid per dwelling in Bristol, in transitional relief in respect of the council tax in each year from 1993–94 to 1995–96. [27449]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The information requested is as follows:

  (a) Total amount of transitional relief

  1993–94: £378,652,826

  1994–95: £111,283,108

  1995–96: £27,178,1791

  (b) Amount of transitional relief paid to Bristol city council

  1993–94: £2,061,364

  1994–95: £529,832

  1995–96: £148,6661

  (c) Percentage of total amount of transitional relief paid to Bristol city council

  1993–94: 0.54 per cent.

  1994–95: 0.48 per cent.

  1995–96: 0.54 per cent.1

  (d) Amount paid per chargeable dwelling in Bristol

  1993–94: £12.94

  1994–95: £3.32

  1995–96: £0.931

  These figures are averages. The actual amount of transitional relief varied according to a household's council tax banding, its composition and its previous liability for community charge.

  1 Information for 1995–96 is provisional and is subject to final grant claims to be made during 1996–97.

  Cable Companies (Access)
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his policy in respect of permitting access by cable companies(a) across local authority land, (b) to install their services to local authority builders and (c) to install their services to listed buildings and in conservation areas; and if he will make a statement. [27057]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  I have been asked to reply.
  431
  Cable television operators are granted special powers under section 10 and schedule 2 of the Telecommunications Act 1984 to assist with the installation of their systems in the public highway and, with the appropriate consents, on private land.

  A cable operator does not have the automatic right to carry out works on private land unless it has first obtained the written agreement of the owner, be it a local authority or a private individual. If a cable operator were to be refused agreement to install its apparatus in these circumstances, it could apply to the courts for the necessary rights to be granted, on terms to be decided by the court.

  The powers given to cable operators, through the terms of their individual licences under the Act, do not override the obligation imposed by section 7 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 to obtain listed building consent for any works which affect the character of a listed building.

  Fluoridation
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what recent representations his Department has received concerning the expansion of water fluoridation; and if he will make a statement; [26994]

  (2) what plans he has for legislation to require water companies to extend the provision of fluoridated water; and if he will make a statement. [26993]

  Mr. Malone
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Department of Health regularly receives correspondence expressing opinions both for and against water fluoridation. Our professional and scientific advisers continue to advise us of the safety and effectiveness of optimal water fluoridation as a means to improving the oral health of the nation, and we therefore support fluoridation, especially in areas of poor dental health. This remains, however, a local matter for agreement between health authorities and water undertakers after local public consultation. There are no plans for changes to current legislation.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Crime (Clear-ups)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of the recorded crimes which were cleared up in each of the past five years were cleared up by secondary means. [25603]

  Mr. Maclean
  The information requested is given in table B of Home Office statistical bulletin 3/96, a copy of which is available in the Library.

  Criminal Cases Review Commission
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the post of chairman of the Criminal Cases Review Commission was advertised; when the interviews took place; how many candidates were interviewed; why no appointment has yet been made; and if he will make a statement. [26883]
  432
  Mr. Kirkhope
  The post of chairman of the Criminal Cases Review Commission was advertised on 3, 5 and 8 September 1995. Six candidates were interviewed on 12 and 20 December 1995. It was announced on 3 April that the chairman will be Sir Frederick Crawford. He will be appointed formally when section 8 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1995 is brought into force.

  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects the Criminal Cases Review Commission to be established; what is the reason for the delay; when he is proposing to advertise for members of the commission; and if he will make a statement. [26884]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  We expect the Criminal Cases Review Commission to start work later this year. Work to establish it is proceeding as quickly as possible. Advertising for the members of the commission will begin on 5 May.

  Mr. Brian Parsons
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he first received representations on behalf of Mr. Brian Parsons; when he expects to complete his considerations; and if he will make a statement. [26886]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  Representations were first made between March 1991 and January 1993, but on the basis of these it was decided in May 1993 not to refer the case to the Court of Appeal. Further representations were made following television documentaries shown in 1994 and 1995. As a result of these, the entire case was re-examined by the Devon and Cornwall police. Once we have finished considering their report, we shall aim to reach a conclusion about the case as quickly as possible.

  Driving Licence Fraud
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on how many occasions driving licences have been used fraudulently in each of the last five years. [26902]

  Mr. Maclean
  The available information relates to the number of findings of guilt for fraud, forgery and similar offences associated with driving licences in England and Wales, and is as follows:Findings of guilt in England and Wales for fraud, forgery and similar offences associated with driving licences.

  1990: 1,436

  1991: 1,200

  1992: 1,015

  1993: 944

  1994: 1,344.

  Figures for 1995 are not yet available.

  James Hanratty
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to receive a report from Superintendent Roger Matthews on his inquiry into the James Hanratty case; and if he will make a statement. [27155]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  We expect to receive shortly a report from the Metropolitan police on certain matters raised in the representations in this case.

  Asylum and Immigration
  Mr. Bernie Grant
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to introduce measures to register and regulate individuals and organisations offering legal advice and representation to applicants for asylum and immigration. [27248]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  I have no plans to introduce such measures. Discussions are continuing with the Law Society and other interested parties on the question of regulation.

  Immigration Complaints System
  Sir Irvine Patnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has received the annual report for 1995 of the complaints audit committee of the Immigration and Nationality Directorate; and if he will make a statement. [27768]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  A copy of the report has been placed in the Library. It is a wide-ranging, informative and encouraging document and I am grateful to the committee for its comments and recommendations. These are already receiving careful consideration.

  UK Passport Agency
  Sir Irvine Patnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how the UK Passport Agency performed against its targets in 1995–96; and what performance targets he has set for the agency in 1996–97. [27769]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  I am pleased to say that the UK Passport Agency achieved all its targets in 1995–96. The targets for processing properly completed straightforward applications were met despite a 20 per cent. increase in demand for passport services with an average turnround time for the whole year of 6.1 working days, well within the average target of seven working days. The Passport Agency's financial target was to reduce its unit cost by 5 per cent. in real terms. The latest indications are that the agency has achieved a 7.25 per cent. real terms reduction in its unit cost. Another notable achievement was the re-award of the chartermark in December 1995.

  During 1996–97, I shall expect the Passport Agency to continue to improve its standard of service to the public, while seeking further efficiency savings in its operations.

  Euro 96
  Mrs. Peacock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will ensure that all police forces will have adequate equipment and manpower available to control unruly behaviour at European nations cup football matches; [27390]

  (2) if he will ensure that water cannons will be available to police authorities in the United Kingdom to control unruly spectators attending the European nations cup football matches; [27392]

  (3) if he will list the steps that have been and will be taken to ensure the safety of spectators at the European nations cup football matches to be held in the summer in England; and if he will make a statement. [27391]
  434
  Mr. Maclean
  Decisions about the deployment of officers and the allocation of resources to police Euro 96 are the responsibility of the chief officers of the eight forces concerned. They must decide how many officers need to be deployed at matches and in surrounding public places. Chief officers are well used to policing football throughout the ordinary football season and are thus best placed to make decisions of this kind.

  A joint Home Office and police working party has concluded that water cannon should not be added to the range of public order equipment available to the police This is because they are heavy and cumbersome and cannot be mobilised quickly to deal with spontaneous disorder.

  The Association of Chief Police Officers has developed extensive plans for the policing of Euro 96, in conjunction with the Football Association and Government Departments. There will be police intelligence centres adjacent to the grounds with a national co-ordinating centre in central London. Police "spotters" will be used to identify troublemakers from home and abroad: very close liaison with the police forces of the participating countries is taking place and will continue throughout the period of the tournament. The latest technology is now in place and will be used to ensure that local police have up-to-date information about the movements of known and suspected hooligans.

  The police strategy is aimed at ensuring the safety and well-being of the great majority of genuine and law abiding football supporters who will be coming to enjoy Euro 96. However, anyone intending to disrupt the competition and spoil the enjoyment of others can be assured they will be swiftly dealt with by the police, the prosecuting authorities and the courts.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many Ahmadi muslims(a) in Pakistan and (b) elsewhere have sought asylum each year since 1984; and how many such applications in each year have been successful. [26042]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  Asylum applications are recorded on the basis of nationality rather than religious beliefs, so therefore, applications lodged by Ahmadi muslims are not separately identifiable in the statistics.

  Tables 2.1 and 3.1 to 3.3 of the Home Office statistical bulletin "Asylum Statistics United Kingdom 1994", issue 15/95, give asylum application and decision figures for nationals of Pakistan and other Muslim countries, for the years 1986 to 1994. Equivalent information for 1985 is given in issue 17/94 of this publication, both of which are available in the Library.

  Raghbir Singh
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for how long Raghbir Singh has been detained; for what reason he has been detained; what recourse to appeal he has against his detention; and if he will make a statement. [26210]
  435
  Mr. Howard
  Raghbir Singh has been detained since 29 March 1995, when he was served with a notice of intention that he should be deported on the ground that his deportation would be conducive to the public good for reasons of national security.

  The lawfulness of my decision to detain Mr. Singh under Immigration Act powers and to initiate deportation action against him has been the subject of judicial review proceedings before both the High Court and the Court of Appeal. On both occasions, the courts concluded that the action was lawful.

  Nigeria
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the safety of pro-democracy supporters being returned to Nigeria; and if he will make a statement. [27136]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  Our assessment of the general situation in Nigeria is summarised in the December 1995 country information document which has been placed in the Library. That assessment is kept under review. Each asylum application is, however, considered in the light of its particular individual circumstances.

  Chief Constables
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what direction he has given to chief constables in relation to activities not related to their duties in managing and supervising the police force in their area, and the amount of time to be spent on such activities not related to the immediate duties for which they are employed; and if he will make a statement; [26809]

  (2) if he will list for all chief constables the amount of time each has spent out of force over the past 12 months; where this has exceeded one week, what clearance has been given from the Home Office for such out-of-force activities; and if he will make a statement; [26810]

  (3) what guidance he has given to chief constables and police authorities in relation to the amount of leave out of force for any one chief constable in a given 12-month period; what provision has been made for cover to be provided in the light of such absence; and if he will make a statement. [26811]

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answers 26 April 1996]: These matters are for chief constables and their police authorities to manage within the provisions of the Police Regulations 1995. During periods of absence, an assistant chief constable, who is designated under the terms of section 6 of the Police Act 1964, as amended by section 6 of the Police and Magistrates Courts' Act 1994, will exercise all the powers and duties of the chief constable.

  Police Officers
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many police officers there are in each member state of the Council of Europe; [26356]

  (2) what is the current ratio of police officers per 1,000 population in each member state of the EU. [26357]

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 29 April 1996]: This information is not centrally collected.

  Learmont Report
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the Home Office report on the Learmont recommendations will be published; for how long he has had the report; what are the reasons for the time taken to publish the report; and if he will make a statement. [26668]

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 29 April 1996]: My right hon. and learned Friend gave his initial response to the report on 16 October 1995, when he dealt with the key recommendations. He agreed that the Prison Service should take forward the policy reviews recommended by Sir John Learmont. My right hon. and learned Friend said that he would come back to the House with a full report in due course. He will do so when he receives the findings of these major reviews.

  Mr. Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what extra funding is being made available to meet the cost of implementing the recommendations arising from the Learmont report; and if he will make a statement. [26669]

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 29 April 1996]: The cost of implementing recommendations arising from the Learmont report is being examined as part of the preparation of my right hon. and learned Friend's response to the report.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  "The Panshangar Fra Bartolommeo"
  Mr. Matthew Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what action she intends taking to ensure the retaining in the United Kingdom of the painting "The Panshangar Fra Bartolommeo" by Fra Bartolommeo; and if he will make a statement. [27265]

  Mr. Sproat
  The Secretary of State has deferred a decision on the export licence application for Fra Bartolommeo's "Holy Family" until after 8 May 1996. The purpose of the deferral is to allow time for a potential purchaser to come forward to keep the painting in the UK, and my Department is aware of the serious intention to make a purchase offer. It is for the owner of the painting to decide whether to accept any forthcoming offer. If such an offer were made and accepted, the licence application would lapse, the painting would become the property of the purchaser and would be retained in the UK. If such an offer were refused, the Secretary of State would take into account the existence of the purchase offer in making a decision on the licence application.

TREASURY

  Private Finance Panel Executive
  Mr. Derek Foster
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will name the 24 seconded staff in the Private Finance Panel Executive; and if they are employed on civil service pay and conditions. [25360]
  437
  Mr. Jack
  There are 25 members of the Private Finance Panel Executive: 13 are seconded; the remaining 12 are employed directly by the PFPE. Panel executive members on secondment from other organisations are:

  Mr. Douglas Hogg (Chief Executive)

  Mr. Rees Griffiths (Deputy Chief Executive)

  Mr. Alisdair Evans

  Ms Catherine Clarke

  Ms Philippa Roe

  Ms Nathalie Nonninton

  Mr. Chas Johnson

  Mr. Neil Carey

  Mr. David Goldstone

  Mr. Andrew Neil

  Mr. David Cain

  Ms Angela Brewis

  Mr. Alex Harris.

  Secondees to the PFPE remain under contract to their employer and their pay and conditions are a matter for them and their employer. The PFPE negotiates with employer organisations an agreed level of reimbursement.

  The PFPE is also subject to an overall budgetary constraint. Within this, it fulfils its remaining staffing requirement through direct employment on the basis of short-term appointments. The PFPE, as a limited company, has management responsibilities for its staff which are unconnected with civil service terms and conditions.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Ms Janet Anderson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the revenue spending estimated by his Department in connection with the private initiative for(a) 1995–96, (b) 1996–97 and (c) 1997–98. [26633]

  Mr. Jack
  The estimated revenue spending in connection with the private finance initiative by Departments responsible to the Chancellor of the Exchequer is:

  1995–96: £0 million

  1996–97: £2 million

  1997–98: £7 million.

  Income Tax
  Mr. Forman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 18 March,Official Report, column 52, what would be the estimated full-year costs at 1996–97 income levels of introducing a single positive rate of income tax at 23 per cent. assuming transferable personal allowances of £5,000 per person and the abolition of all other tax expenditures, exemptions and reliefs now allowable against income tax. [27242]

  Mr. Jack
  The estimated full-year cost of introducing a single 23 per cent. rate of income tax at 1996–97 income levels would be about £3 billion. This assumes a personal allowance of £5,000 transferable between spouses and the abolition of all other income tax allowances, mortgage interest relief, tax relief on employer's contributions to occupational and personal pension schemes, reliefs for TESSAs, PEPs and profit-related pay, national savings certificates, employee share schemes and charitable giving.
  438
  This estimate does not take into account the substantial behavioural effects which might result from the introduction of such a change nor do they allow for any subsequent changes to the tax system, such as changes to tax relief on employer's contributions to pension schemes or relief for investment income in pension funds.

  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate of the change in revenue to the Exchequer resulting from a rise in the top rate of income tax from(a) 40 per cent. to 50 per cent. and (b) from 40 per cent. to 60 per cent. [26762]

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 25 April 1996]:Estimated full-year yields at 1996–97 income levels are given in the table. The estimates do not take account of any behavioural effects which might result from the introduction of such changes. The figures include consequential effects on the yield of capital gains tax.

  Higher rate at:

  Yield £ billion

  50 per cent.

  4.7

  60 per cent.

  9.3

  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the yield from higher rate income tax charged by direct assessment on investment income received net of lower rate income tax in the latest year for which figures are available. [27033]

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 26 April 1996]: In 1995–96, £1.2 billion tax was collected via assessments for additional tax on investment income from which tax had already been deducted at source.

  Public Expenditure
  Mr. Forman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the(a) identifiable and (b) non-identifiable public expenditure per head in (i) England and (ii) the United Kingdom in the latest year for which figures are available. [27109]

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The latest available figures are for 1994–95:

  £ per head

  Identifiable

  Non-identifiable

  England

  3,614

  n/a

  Scotland

  4,505

  n/a

  Wales

  4,208

  n/a

  Northern Ireland

  4,976

  n/a

  United Kingdom

  3,760

  688

  The term "non-identifiable expenditure" is used to refer to spending which cannot be attributed to the benefit of any one part of the Union.

  Landfill Tax
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what is the current estimate of the revenue to be expected from the landfill tax; [27378]

  (2) what is his estimate of the revenue available for environmental trusts from the landfill tax. [27413]
  439
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The estimated net revenue yield from landfill tax is £450 million in a full year. However, because precise figures about the amount of waste sent to landfill are not available centrally, the revenue estimate for the tax is open to a greater than usual margin of error. The estimate assumes that credits of tax amounting to £50 million will be given to site operators in respect of voluntary contributions they make to environmental trusts, although, on the basis of the revenue projection for the tax and the maximum credit entitlement, as much as £100 million is potentially available for trusts in a full year.

  Privatisation Issues
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what reasons led him to offer shares to the market(a) in tranches and (b) in one complete issue for each privatisation since 1979. [27343]

  Mr. Jack
  Decisions on offer structure are matters for each vendor Department, taking account of such issues as the size of the company being sold and market conditions at the time of each sale.

  International Monetary Fund
  Mr. Matthew Banks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement about the recent spring meetings of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. [27709]

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  I attended meetings of the IMF's interim committee and the IMF/World Bank development committee in Washington on 22 and 23 April, where progress was made on several issues of importance for the world economy and for developing countries. As usual, the IMF and World Bank meetings were preceded by meetings of the G7 and G10 Finance Ministers and central bank governors.

  The G7, the interim committee and the development committee all discussed the joint IMF/World Bank proposals on the multilateral debt of the poorest, most indebted countries which was one of my top priorities for the meetings. I first launched this initiative at Valletta 18 months ago, and good progress is now being made. In Washington, all agreed that there is a problem which must be tackled. A substantial number of countries now agree with us that, as the managing director has now proposed, the IMF should sell a small part of its gold and invest it to produce commercial returns, which could be used for contributing to the ongoing enhanced structural adjustment facility. The G7 countries all agreed that the resources of the international financial institutions themselves must be mobilised for the purpose of relieving multilateral debt.

  With the support of other Ministers, I asked the IMF and World Bank last autumn to produce proposals by the spring. These were delivered in outline form and, last week, we agreed on the principles and a framework for action. We have now called on the IMF and World Bank, in co-operation with the regional development banks, swiftly to put forward more specific proposals, making the fullest use of their own resources to finance them. Our aim is to take final decisions by the time of the annual meetings which will be held from 29 September to 3 October.
  440
  At the G7 meeting, we reviewed economic and financial market developments in the world economy and assessed the outlook for the G7 economies, concluding that, despite the recent pause in growth in some countries, the underlying fundamentals in the G7 were promising, particularly in light of progress in reducing inflation. We agreed that policies should continue to be directed at sustaining non-inflationary growth and, where necessary and appropriate, at strengthening recovery. We welcomed the call from the Lille employment conference for continued reduction of structural obstacles to jobs growth. We had a useful discussion of the Russian economy with the Finance Minister and central bank chairman of Russia. We welcomed their 1996 economic reform programme and encouraged the authorities to continue with its full implementation.

  We reviewed the progress achieved and the considerable work underway to implement the initiatives arising from the Halifax summit last June, and this discussion was continued in the G10 and interim committee.

  The G10 commended the report of the working party on the resolution of sovereign liquidity crises, and agreed that the report should be released to the public. A copy of the executive summary containing the conclusions of the report, which has not been released, has been placed in the Library of the House. It contains some important messages about the handling of future crises of the kind that occurred in Mexico.

  We discussed the work being done by the Basle committee on banking supervision, the International Organisation of Securities Commissions and other bodies to improve the soundness of financial institutions and markets, and welcomed the efforts to increase co-operation among supervision authorities which will provide a good basis for the further work to be done in this important area.

  Further progress has been made in developing new financing arrangements which would double the resources currently available to the IMF under the general arrangements to borrow, and we urged the discussions to come to a successful conclusion as soon as possible. I stressed the importance in this work involving a wider range of countries, including some of the emerging market economies, recognising their interest in the stability of the international financial system.

  At the IMF interim committee, I strongly supported the recent publication of the IMF's special data dissemination standard, and I am delighted to say that the UK was the first country to subscribe to this demanding standard.

  In the development committee, in addition to the discussion of multilateral debt, I welcomed the good outcome of the International Development Association replenishment, which was achieved in difficult circumstances. The committee also commended the report of the task force on multilateral development banks.

  Copies of my speeches to the interim and development committees, and the communiqués of those meetings and the G10 Finance Ministers' meeting, have been placed in the Library of the House. The G7 did not on this occasion issue a communiqué.

  Hand Rolling Tobacco
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the annual revenue losses which are due to the importation of hand rolling tobacco as a consequence of(a) smuggling and (b) the implementation of the duty-free/duty-paid regulations. [26438]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  [holding answer 29 April 1996]: Customs does not have any reliable estimate of the extent of revenue losses due to smuggling of hand rolling tobacco. It is working closely with the tobacco and alcoholic drinks industries with the aim of achieving an objective measurement of smuggling of excise goods.

  Customs' estimate of tax revenue—excise duty and VAT—lost from legitimate personal importation of duty-paid tobacco products for the year ending 30 June 1995 is £150 million. There are no separate figures available for hand rolling tobacco, and no official estimate of the extent of duty-free sales of hand rolling tobacco.

  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will commission a study of the sales of hand rolling tobacco and of cigarette papers with a view to establishing the extent of tobacco smuggling; and if he will make a statement. [26373]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  [holding answer 29 April 1996]: No. I have already told the Treasury Committee, in response to the report on its 1995 inquiry into cross-border shopping, that Customs and Excise is having discussions with the trade to find an agreed methodology for deriving credible estimates of the level of smuggling in tobacco products. Factors such as sales of hand rolling tobacco and of cigarette papers may form part of the methodology, or may be used to validate it.

  VAT Avoidance Schemes
  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what action Customs and Excise has taken to counter well known, widely used and successful VAT avoidance schemes. [27271]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  [holding answer 29 April 1996]: Countering successful VAT avoidance schemes normally requires changes to the law. These are proposed in the annual Finance Bill, as with the recent changes to the VAT group registration provisions, or introduced by secondary legislation.

  Ms Primarolo
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how Customs and Excise is proposing to counter well-known VAT avoidance schemes that use VAT place of supply rules to ensure VAT costs are avoided. [27272]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  [holding answer 29 April 1996]: Customs and Excise, as part of its normal functions, is active in identifying VAT avoidance schemes, including those involving the manipulation of the rules on place of supply, and in suggesting and implementing measures to combat such avoidance. It would not be appropriate to specify in advance what any new measures might be.

  Iraq (UN Special Commission)
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what investigations are planned in respect of suspected breaches of United Kingdom export controls following the UNSCOM report on the involvement of British companies in supplying Iraq with the components of chemical and biological weapons. [25663]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  [holding answer 29 April 1996]: Any information from UNSCOM reports passed to Customs and Excise is carefully examined and given appropriate attention. It is not, however, the practice of that department to provide information on any planned investigations lest disclosure should prejudice the effectiveness of any inquiries.

  Investments (Hong Kong, China and India)
  Mr. Shore
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimates he has made of United Kingdom(a) direct and (b) portfolio investment in each year since 1990 in (i) China and Hong Kong and (ii) India. [26298]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  I have been asked to reply.

  The available information on direct investment is published by the Office for National Statistics in Business Monitor MA4, "Overseas Direct Investment". Information on portfolio investment, broken down by country, is not available.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Jobseeker's Allowance
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if a claimant issued with jobseeker's direction to attend an employment or training programme will suffer benefit sanction if(a) he leaves the programme early and (b) is asked to leave by reason of misconduct. [27104]

  Mr. Forth
  [holding answer 29 April 1996]: The only employment programmes and training schemes in connection with which claimants will normally receive a benefit sanction if they leave early without good cause or as a result of misconduct will be those prescribed for the purposes of section 19 of the Jobseeekers Act 1995. These are jobplan workshops, 1–2–1, workwise, restart courses and, in two pilot areas, project work. However, it may on occasion be appropriate to give an individual a jobseeker's direction to take up a place on a non-prescribed programme to which sanctions will not normally be applicable. Such a direction would be given only if it were reasonable in the jobseeker's circumstances, if it were given with a view to assisting him to find employment or improving his prospects of being employed, and if other prescribed employment programmes and training programmes were not appropriate. Whether such a claimant received a benefit sanction if he left the programme early or through misconduct, having been directed to attend, would depend on the specific terms of the direction.

  Nursery Voucher Scheme
  Mr. Mills
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment she has made of the number of local education authorities which(a) will and (b) will not benefit in (i) financial and (ii) qualitative terms in respect of nursery education from her nursery voucher proposals. [26422]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  All local education authorities have the opportunity to benefit from extra funding via the nursery education voucher scheme if more four year-olds attend their schools or attend for more terms before compulsory school age; and all LEAs have the opportunity to build upon existing good practice and raise standards in the context of the desirable outcomes for children's learning developed by the School Curriculum Assessment Authority.

  Postgraduate Bursary and Studentship Rates
  Mr. John Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will announce the postgraduate bursary and studentship rates for the academic year 1996–97. [27707]

  Mr. Forth
  The main maintenance rates under the Department's own postgraduate awards scheme for certain professional and vocational courses in the academic year 1996–97 will be as follows (1995–96 rates are shown in brackets):

  1996–97

  £

  Bursaries

  London

  3,460 (3,375)

  Elsewhere

  2,735 (2,665)

  Parental home

  2,065 (2,015)

  Studentships

  London

  5,845 (5,695)

  Elsewhere

  4,645 (4,525)

  Parental Home

  3,420 (3,335)

  These represent increases of 2.6 per cent. on the current year's rates. The relevant supplementary allowances will be increased broadly in line.

  Investors in People
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many small firms(a) are
  444
  currently participating in investors in people and (b) have achieved the standard (i) in total and (ii) in each parliamentary constituency. [27008]

  Mr. Paice
  [holding answer 29 April 1996]: At 29 February 1996, a total of 13,987 small firms in the UK—that is those employing fewer than 200 employees—had made a formal commitment to achieve the investors in people standard; 2,385 small firms are already recognised as having achieved the standard. This gives a total of 16,372 small firms participating in investors in people.

  A breakdown of the figures by parliamentary constituency is not available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. However, a regional breakdown is provided in the following table:

  Investors in People Commitments and Recognitions in Small Firms (organisations with fewer than 200 employees)

  Region

  Commitments

  Recognitions

  East Midlands

  1,315

  150

  Eastern

  1,248

  110

  London

  1,926

  142

  Merseyside

  424

  102

  North West

  1,923

  246

  Northern

  472

  126

  South East

  1,837

  219

  South West

  1,280

  380

  West Midlands

  1,305

  252

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  1,089

  217

  Wales

  633

  145

  Scotland

  457

  203

  Northern Ireland

  61

  25

  Dental Services
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what steps are being taken by her Department to develop postgraduate training and continuing medical education in dentistry; and if she will make a statement. [26992]

  Mr. Malone
  I have been asked to reply.

  Since October 1993, it has been a requirement that all new graduates who wish to enter the general dental services take part in one year's vocational training. The continuing professional development of the 18,500 dentists who provide general dental services is organised by dental postgraduate deans and directors. Subject to certain conditions, GDS dentists who attend courses approved by postgraduate deans and directors may claim a postgraduate education allowance for up to two courses per financial year.

TRANSPORT

  Shipping (English Language)
  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what factors underlay his decision not to require that passenger and freight ships operating in British waters should use English as a single designated working language. [26296]

  Mr. Norris
  Our legislation requires that crews on passenger ships on domestic services understand English or that there are adequate arrangements for transmitting orders in a language they understand. Further legislation is being considered, for all UK ships and all other passenger ships operating to or from the UK, requiring effective oral communication between all crew members and adequate means of communication, in the English language, between the ship and shore-based authorities. The ability of crew members to communicate effectively with each other is already monitored by the Marine Safety Agency.

  Many ships which operate in UK waters do not call at UK ports, and international action is, therefore, also needed. The revised international convention on standards of training, certification and watchkeeping for seafarers, which will be implemented by 1 February 1997, builds on existing international standards and requires every master, mate and officer in charge of watchkeeping on a vessel of 500 gross tonnes and over to have an adequate knowledge of the English language to communicate with other ships and with coast stations.

  Aviation Standards
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the countries that have been visited by(a) his Department and (b) the Civil Aviation Authority to assess that country's compliance with International Civil Aviation Organisation standards; and if he will make a statement. [26753]

  Mr. Norris
  At the Department's request, the CAA visited Belgrade in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in 1995 and Bulgaria earlier this year. We have increased the Department's budget to allow for about three such visits this financial year.

  Visits to assess compliance with International Civil Aviation Organisation—ICAO—standards can be arranged only with the agreement of the foreign aviation authority concerned. The need for the UK to arrange such a visit will depend on whether assessments have been, or are being, undertaken in the country concerned by other organisations, such as the Joint Aviation Authorities. In addition, ICAO, has recently launched its own assessment programme. The Department is paying for CAA inspectors to join ICAO teams to visit a number of countries later this year; the details have yet to be finalised.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the number of inspections which have been undertaken by the Civil Aviation Authority in(a) Jamaica, (b) Colombia, (c) Dominican Republic, (d) Gambia, (e) Peru, (f) Philippines, (g) Poland, (h) Swaziland, (i) Trinidad and Tobago, (j) Turkey,
  446
  (k) Uruguay, (l) Venezuela, (m) Zaireand (n) Zimbabwe [26752]

  Mr. Norris
  None.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the United Kingdom airports serviced by airlines flying to or from(a) Jamaica, (b) Colombia, (c) the Dominican Republic, (d) Gambia, (e) Peru, (f) the Philippines, (g) Poland, (h) Swaziland, (i) Trinidad and Tobago, (j) Turkey, (k) Uruguay, (l) Venezuela, (m) Zaire and (n) Zimbabwe. [26752]

  Mr. Norris
  The United Kingdom airports currently serviced by airlines flying to or from those countries are listed in the table. In addition, charter services may operate from UK airports to those countries on an ad-hoc basis, as and when applications are made.

  (a) Jamaica

  London Heathrow (Air Jamaica), London Gatwick (British Airways)

  (b) Colombia

  London Heathrow (British Airways)

  (c) The Dominican Republic

  None

  (d) Gambia

  None

  (e) Peru

  None

  (f) the Philippines

  London Heathrow (British Airways), London Gatwick (Philippine Airlines)

  (g) Poland

  London Heathrow (British Airways, British Midland and LOT Polish Airlines)

  (h) Swaziland

  None

  (i) Trinidad and Tobago

  London Heathrow (BWIA, British West Indies Airways)

  (j) Turkey

  London Heathrow (British Airways and THY Turkish Airlines), London Gatwick (British Airways), London Stansted (THY Turkish Airlines)

  (k) Uruguay

  None

  (l) Venezuela

  London Heathrow (British Airways and Viasa)

  (m) Zaire

  None

  (n) Zimbabwe

  London Gatwick (British Airways and Air Zimbabwe).

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the consultations being undertaken by(a) his Department and (b) the CAA with (i) Jamaica, (ii) Colombia, (iii) the Dominican Republic, (iv) Gambia, (v) Peru, (vi) the Phillippines, (vii) Poland, (viii) Swaziland, (ix) Trinidad and Tobago, (x) Turkey, (xi) Uruguay, (xii) Venezuela, (xiii) Zaire and (xiv) Zimbabwe concerning the commencement or increase in flights to and from the United Kingdom. [26751]
  447
  Mr. Norris
  Air service negotiations undertaken by the Department of Transport with these countries are listed in the table. A representative from the CAA is usually present at such negotiations.

  (i) Jamaica

  Negotiations were held on 24 to 26 January 1996 and it is expected that a further round will be held later this year.

  (ii) Colombia

  Negotiations were held in September 1995. No talks are currently planned.

  (iii) The Dominican Republic

  Negotiations were held in 1951. No talks are currently planned.

  (iv) Gambia

  Negotiations were held in February 1992. No talks are currently planned.

  (v) Peru

  Negotiations were held in 1969. No talks are currently planned.

  (vi) the Philippines

  Negotiations were held on 7 to 8 March 1996 and it is anticipated that a further round will be held later this year.

  (vii) Poland

  Negotiations were held in January 1995. No talks are currently planned.

  (viii) Swaziland

  We have no record of negotiations with Swaziland and none are currently planned.

  (ix) Trinidad and Tobago

  Negotiations were held in December 1987. No talks are currently planned.

  (x) Turkey

  Negotiations were held in June 1992. No talks are currently planned.

  (xi) Uruguay

  Negotiations were held in 1970. No talks are currently planned.

  (xii) Venezuela

  Negotiations were held in March 1992. No talks are currently planned.

  (xiii) Zaire

  Negotiations were held in 1974. No talks are currently planned.

  (xiv) Zimbabwe

  Negotiations were held in July 1989. No talks are currently planned.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what proposals he has to introduce an inspection system of auditing a country's aviation infrastructure similar to that operated by the US Federal Aviation Authority. [26759]

  Mr. Norris
  My reply to the hon. Lady on 7 March 1996,Official Report, column 309, set out our procedures for checking that foreign aircraft operating in the UK comply with international safety standards set by the International Civil Aviation Organisation.

  In addition, we are participating in the safety oversight programme established by the International Civil Aviation Organisation, and in discussions on possible actions to be taken by the European Civil Aviation Conference and the EC.

  In some circumstances, the Civil Aviation Authority is prepared to audit overseas regulatory authorities outside the framework of international programmes.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Ms Janet Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the revenue spending estimated by his Department in connection with the private finance initiative for(a) 1995–96, (b) 1996–97 and (c) 1997–98. [26623]

  Mr. Watts
  Revenue spending by my Department in connection with the private finance initiative for the years in question is estimated at roundly:(a) zero, (b) £50 million, and (c) £160 million.

  Newbury Bypass
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if the road-building contractors will meet the costs of security for the work carried out on the Newbury bypass; and if the Government will take into account the cost of security for road-building projects when considering other road schemes in the future. [26797]

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

  Letter from Laurie Haynes to Mr. Graham Allen, dated 30 April 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your recent question asking if the road building contractors will meet the costs of security for the work carried out on the Newbury Bypass; and if the Government will take into account the cost of security for road building projects when considering other road schemes in the future.
  Under the terms of the contract, the cost of security on this scheme will be borne by the Agency.
  With regard to the second part of your question, the Department's standard scheme appraisal methods (principally COBA) take into account all expenditure incurred as a result of a decision to go ahead with a scheme. Thus, the costs of normal security precautions (to protect contractors' equipment for example), are already included. Where it is apparent that exceptional security measures are likely to be required, estimates of these costs will be made and taken into account in future studies.

  Railway Rolling Stock
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the average age of railway rolling stock in(a) the United Kingdom and (b) France in 1993. [26972]

  Mr. Watts
  This information is not available.

  A40 Gloucestershire
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to improve the bridge on the A40 trunk road in Cheltenham near the junction of Lansdown road and Gloucester road; and if he will make a statement. [27059]

  Mr. Watts
  The existing brickwork parapets on the Lansdown road bridge do not comply with modern standards. It is proposed that they be upgraded and at the same time the bridge be widened to accommodate a shared cycle and pedestrian facility on the south side and a segregated facility on the north side. The provision for cyclists will form part of the Tennyson road to Shelburne road facility.

  The timing of construction will depend upon the availability of funds.
  449
  Mr. Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received concerning improvements to the A40 trunk road between Cheltenham and Gloucester; what estimate he has made of the cost of each improvement scheme; in what order of priority he has placed each scheme; what plans he has to implement the improvements before detrunking this part of the A40; and if he will make a statement. [27060]

  Mr. Watts
  Gloucestershire county council has asked the Highways Agency to fund the following schemes on the A40 through Cheltenham before the road is detrunked. The schemes are listed in priority order.

  (1) Lansdown road railway bridge—Parapet strengthening and widening to cater for pedestrians and cyclists. (Cost £860,000).

  (2) Tennyson road to Shelburne road cycleway—Provision of a cycle track and footway along the northern side of the A40. The scheme has been the subject of public consultation. (Cost £120,000).

  (3) Old Bath road/Sandford road—Provision of a roundabout. (Cost £44,000).

  (4) Gordon lamp junction improvement—Scheme has been progressed to tender document stage. (Cost £9,000).

  (5) Lansdown road/Lansdown walk junction—Closure of the side road. (Cost £5,600).

  (6) West Green—Signing improvements, completed in 1995–96. (Cost £2,000).

  Gloucestershire county council has also asked for certain maintenance works to be carried out on the A40.

  The Highways Agency is close to finalising agreement with Gloucestershire county council on the package of works related to the detrunking of the A40, subject to satisfactory completion of the statutory procedures.

  We expect to publish draft orders this summer.

  Aircraft Leasing
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list, by grade, the number of staff employed(a) in his Department and (b) in the Civil Aviation Authority who have responsibility for administering the requests for leasing of aircraft. [26913]

  Mr. Norris
  Four administrative officers in the Department's international aviation negotiations directorate have day-to-day responsibility for processing aircraft leasing applications as part of their duties. However, more senior officers in the directorate give final approval.

  The economic regulation group of the CAA advises the Department on all lease applications except for substitution flights. This accounts for a small proportion of the overall work of three staff graded JMG1, JMG4 and JMG7.

  The safety regulation group of the CAA is responsible for issuing safety approval for leased aircraft. Administering lease applications involves two staff, one leasing co-ordinator and one assistant leasing co-ordinator.

  Aircraft Operating Licences
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport which airlines are licensed to operate in or out of the United Kingdom, together with their country of registration. [26905]

  Mr. Norris
  The airlines that have seasonal permits for summer 1996 to operate scheduled and charter services to the United Kingdom are listed, by geographical region. In addition, ad hoc charters may be given permission as and when applications are made. Airlines from the European Economic Area countries are able to operate into the UK without a permit for services operated in accordance with the EC third aviation package. Therefore, only those EEA airlines with permits from the Department for services which are outside the scope of EC regulations are included in the list.

  Airline

  Country of registration

  Air Canada

  Canada

  Canadian Airlines

  Canada

  Air Club International

  Canada

  Air Transat

  Canada

  Canada 3000

  Canada

  American Trans Air

  US

  DHL

  US

  Emery Worldwide

  US

  Polar Air Cargo

  US

  Zantop International Airways

  US

  American Airlines

  US

  Continental Airlines

  US

  Delta Airlines

  US

  Evergreen International Airlines

  US

  Federal Express

  US

  North West Airlines

  US

  Trans World Airlines

  US

  United Airlines

  US

  United Parcel Service

  US

  World Airways

  US

  Laker Airways

  US

  BWIA International

  Trinidad and Tobago

  Cubana de Aviacion

  Cuba

  Air Jamaica

  Jamaica

  Aeroflot Russian International Airlines

  Russia

  Azerbaijan Airlines

  Azerbaijan

  Air Ukraine

  Ukraine

  Belavia Air Company

  Belarus

  Kazakhstan Airlines

  Kazakhstan

  Air China

  China

  Air Hong Kong

  Hong Kong

  Cathay Pacific Airways

  Hong Kong

  EVA Airways

  Taiwan

  Garuda Indonesia

  Indonesia

  Korean Air

  South Korea

  Malaysian Airline System

  Malaysia

  Philippine Airlines

  Philippines

  Royal Brunei Airlines

  Brunei

  All Nippon Airways

  Japan

  Japan Airlines

  Japan

  Air India

  India

  Air Lanka

  Sri Lanka

  Biman Bangladesh Airlines

  Bangladesh

  Pakistan International Airlines

  Pakistan

  Air New Zealand

  New Zealand

  Qantas Airways

  Australia

  Aerolineas Argentinas

  Argentina

  VARIG Brazilian Airlines

  Brazil

  VIASA

  Paraguay

  Air Seychelles

  Seychelles

  Air Mauritius

  Mauritius

  Air Algerie

  Algeria

  451

  Airline

  Country of registration

  Cameroon Airlines

  Cameroon

  EgyptAir

  Egypt

  Ethiopian Airlines

  Ethiopia

  Ghana Airways Corporation

  Ghana

  Kenya Airways

  Kenya

  Air Namibia

  Namibia

  Nigeria Airways

  Nigeria

  Royal Air Maroc

  Morocco

  South African Airways

  South Africa

  Tunisair

  Tunisia

  Air Zimbabwe

  Zimbabwe

  Alyemen—Airlines of Yemen

  Yemen

  Yemen Airways

  Yemen

  EL AL Israel Airlines

  Israel

  Emirates Airlines

  United Arab Emirates

  Gulf Air

  Designated carrier of UAE, Oman, Bahrain and Qatar

  Iran Air

  Iran

  Royal Jordanian

  Jordan

  Kuwait Airways

  Kuwait

  Middle East Airlines Airliban S.A.L.

  The Lebanon

  Trans Mediterranean Airways S.A.L.

  The Lebanon

  Qatar Airways

  Qatar

  Saudia—Saudia Arabian Airlines

  Saudi Arabia

  Balkan Bulgarian Airlines

  Bulgaria

  Air Via

  Bulgaria

  Croatia Airlines

  Croatia

  Cyprus Airways

  Cyprus

  Eurocypria Airlines

  Cyprus

  CSA, Czech Airlines

  Czech Republic

  Estonia Air

  Estonia

  Finnair

  Finland

  Condor Flugdienst Gmbh

  Germany

  Lufthansa German Airlines

  Germany

  Deutsche BA

  Germany

  Eurowings Luftverkehrs

  Germany

  Malev Hungarian Airlines

  Hungary

  Aer Lingus

  Ireland

  Air Baltic Corporation SIA

  Latvia

  Riga Airlines

  Latvia

  Lithuanian Airlines

  Lithuania

  Cargolux Airlines Intl. SA

  Luxembourg

  Air Malta

  Malta

  KLM Royal Dutch Airlines

  The Netherlands

  Braathens SAFE

  Norway

  LOT Polish Airlines

  Poland

  Tarom Romanian Air Transport

  Romania

  Jaro International

  Romania

  Adria Airways

  Slovenia

  Transwede

  Sweden

  Swissair

  Switzerland

  Crossair

  Switzerland

  Air Engiadina AG

  Switzerland

  Edelweiss Air AG

  Switzerland

  Trans European Airways Basel AG

  Switzerland

  THY Turkish Airlines

  Turkey

  Onur Air

  Turkey

  Kibris Turkish Airlines

  Turkey

  Istanbul Airlines

  Turkey

  Pegasus Airlines

  Turkey

  Intersun Havacilik

  Turkey

  JAT Yugoslav Airlines

  FRY (Serbia and Montenegro)

  Road Congestion
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if his Department will publish the report on congestion on the trunk road network. [27402]
  452
  Mr. Watts
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply of 26 February, column 340, my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill).

  Transport Strategy (London)
  Mr. Carrington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he proposes to publish a statement on his transport strategy for London. [27770]

  Mr. Norris
  I have today placed in the Library of the House copies of "A Transport Strategy for London". In this document, we set out our overall objectives for transport in London and an integrated strategy to achieve them.

  Performance Targets
  Mr. John Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what targets he has set for the executive agencies in his Department. [27767]

  Sir George Young
  The following key targets have been set for the Department of Transport's executive agencies. The targets are set out in the agencies' business plans, which also include management objectives, performance indicators and key tasks, where appropriate to the agencies' businesses. Copies of the business plans are placed in the Library.

  The key targets for the Coastguard Agency are to:

  discharge the Secretary of State's responsibility for maritime search and rescue, through its own or dedicated assets by:

  maintaining a 24 hours search and rescue—SAR—co-ordinating capability within, and including the coasts and shoreline of, the UK search and rescue region;

  maintaining a comprehensive radio reception and transmission coverage of the UKSAR which enables SAR co-ordination action for the duration of incidents without interruption or equipment malfunction;

  testing contingency plans for major maritime SAR incidents, particularly those involving passenger carrying vessels/merchant shipping and the offshore oil/gas industry by undertaking six major live exercises and 35 seminars.

  consider how the upward trend in SAR incidents might be arrested and reversed and to report to the Department by December 1996, meanwhile implementing a strategy designed to promote sea and shore safety awareness.

  implement ministerial decisions following the interdepartmental review on SAR helicopter coverage.

  maintain a fully operational 24 hours channel navigation information service (CNIS) covering the Dover strait traffic separation scheme (TSS), in concert with the appropriate French authorities.

  discharge the Secretary of State's responsibility for dealing with marine pollution by the maintenance of a national contingency plan and in particular;

  activate the plan within 30 minutes of notification of an incident; and

  commence action at sea to deal with a spill of dispersible oil within four hours of notification of an incident;

  testing the effectiveness of the plan by undertaking a major exercise and to report on the outcome by 31 March 1997.

  carry out a minimum of 625 hours a year aerial surveillance of the sea area for which the UK has responsibility to detect or deter incidents of marine pollution, including illegal discharges from ships.

  discharge the agency's functions while remaining within its 1966–97 running costs budget.

  453

  implement phase 1 of the proposed reorganisation of the HMCG operational structure Focus for Change" by 31 March 1997

  The key targets for the Driving Standards Agency are to:

  achieve unit costs not exceeding £28.30 for car practical tests, and not exceeding £15.00 for theory tests.

  achieve a national average waiting time for car tests of nine weeks between April and September 1996 and six weeks between October 1996 and March 1997, and for appointments to be available within 10 weeks at 90 per cent. of permanent test centres between April and September 1996 and 99 per cent. of centres between October 1996 and March 1997.

  ensure that appointments cancelled by DSA less than two days before the date of a test average 1 per cent. between April and September 1996, and average no more than 0.5 per cent. of appointments between October 1996 and March 1997.

  answer 90 per cent. of telephone calls to booking offices within 60 second between April and September 1996. From October 1996 to March 1997 the target will be to ensure that:

  four out of five calls will be answered on their first dialling attempt;

  90 per cent. of calls which have been answered by an automatic system will then be answered by a human voice within 30 seconds; and

  an average of no more than 5 per cent. of calls in the queue will be abandoned before being answered.

  Ensure that the theory test contractor has created the required density of test venues and frequency of test sessions in line with the services specification by 1 July 1996, and that theory tests are available to the public from that date.

  The key targets for the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency are to:

  make an efficiency gain—on the basis of an overall efficiency index—of 2.4 per cent.

  complete successfully 495, 000 vehicle excise duty enforcement cases by imposition of penalties and to recover, through penalties and duty from licensing, at least £2.80 for every £1 full cost spent by DVLA on vehicle excise duty enforcement.

  deliver 95 per cent. of ordinary driving licences to customers within 11 working days, 95 per cent. of vocational driving licences within 10 working days, and 95 per cent. of first provisional driving licences within nine working days.

  deliver 95 per cent. of registration documents for new vehicles within 12 days, and 95 per cent. of changes to vehicle registration documents within 13 days.

  deliver answers to 95 per cent. of written inquiries within eight working days, and answer 90 per cent. of telephone inquiries within 30 seconds

  ensure that at least 97 per cent. of driving licences, 98 per cent. of registration documents for new vehicles, and 96 per cent. of changes to registration documents, are issued without a DVLA-induced error.

  The key targets for the Highways Agency are to:

  achieve 80 per cent. of the national schemes milestones and design, build, finance and operate tender invitations and contract awards listed in annex D to the business plan, or other milestones as may be substituted or added by Ministers.

  maintain the trunk road network cost effectively by undertaking a programme of capital maintenance aimed at ensuring that the percentage of the trunk road network past the critical condition remains at 7 to 8 per cent. by 2000, with the minimum disruption to traffic, and ensuring that roads are safe, reliable, and offer an acceptable quality of ride; and to ensure that from 1 January 1999, all vehicles up to and including the new 40-tonne maximum gross vehicle weight standard can use all structures supporting trunk roads and other important routes over trunk roads by completing in 1996–97:
  454

  the renewal of 50 nearside lane kilometres (nlks) of motorway and 80 nlks of all purpose trunk road; and

  assessments of the structural capacity of 670 structures and completing the strengthening of 17 structures network management and maintenance division.

  contribute to the Government's target of reducing road casualties by one third by 2000 (compared to the annual average for 1981–1985) by limiting accident rates between 1996 and 1998 on the motorways and all-purpose trunk road network to 21 accidents involving personal injury for every 100 million vehicle kilometres of travel.

  develop and agree, with the Central Transport Group, systems for monitoring congestion on motorways and high standard all-purpose trunk roads by 31 December 1996.

  publish, as part of the agency's annual report, a report covering:

  environmental aspects of new schemes, and network management and maintenance activities, demonstrating that the agency has given full weight to environmental issues in carrying out its function and has struck a balance according;

  the agency's contribution to the follow-up to "Transport: the Way Ahead"; and

  the measures taken by the agency to contribute to the implementation of the Government's air quality strategy.

  improve the effectiveness of the agency by:

  developing an aggregate unit cost indicator (formula) embracing the full range of the agency's outputs, but with inputs limited initially to administration and preparation and supervision costs;

  determining and agreeing with the Central Transport Group by 30 September 1996, the values of that indicator for 1995–96 (to be based on 1995–96 outturn) and for 1996–97 (to be based on 1996–97 business plan budgets and targets); and

  to perform, in outturn, no worse than the agreed ratio.

  Applications to the National Roads Scheme Committee in 1996–97, to increase the cost of schemes are not to exceed 2 per cent. of the total programme value.

  The key targets for the Marine Safety Agency are to:

  implement the international safety management code for ro-ro ferries by 1 July 1996.

  report to shipping policy by 31 October 1996 with proposals to implement, for ro-ro passenger ships operating to and from UK ports, the relevant amendments to the safety of life at sea convention and the regional agreement on the application of higher stability standards.

  complete all necessary work by 31 March 1997 to implement the under 12 m fishing vessel safety code.

  agree with shipping policy, by 31 May 1996, a programme of implementation for the Government's initiative on reducing illegal discharge of wastes from ships and review the waste reception facility provision for marine pollutants from ships in UK ports by 31 December 1996.

  make arrangements for the implementation of the revised standards of training, certification and watchkeeping convention by 1 February 1997 taking account of deregulation and the introduction of vocational qualifications.

  complete the work on the consolidation of existing secondary legislation resulting from the MSA deregulation review by 30 September 1996.

  inspect between 25 and 30 per cent. of foreign flagged vessels using UK ports including ro-ro ferries and fish factory ships.

  achieve an average output of survey and inspection work per marine office surveyor of 3 per cent. greater than the outturn for 1995–96, while delivering the planned programme of surveys and inspections.

  discharge the agency's functions while remaining within its 1996–97 running costs budget.

  The key targets for the Vehicle Inspectorate are to:

  455

  meet the requirements on level and types of activity laid down in the memorandum of agreement on each scheme.

  distribute its resources between each activity so as to achieve at least the minimum number of road safety/environment values laid down for the roadworthiness and MOT schemes and to increase the number of HGV designated premises.

  meet the quality and general effectiveness levels as specified in the business plan measures set for 1996–97.

  implement a system of annual surveys and/or structured interviews to be carried out with all principal customers and evaluated to determine score as the basis of measuring future improvement in performance.

  achieve an aggregated cost efficiency index outturn of +3 per cent.

  break even while achieving an average 6 per cent. real rate of return on capital, over the period 1 April 1991 to 31 March 1998.

  secure the long-term development of the organisation through working for the investors in people award, achieving 70 per cent. of the assessment indicators set out in the standards of the investors in people award and through implementing the three elements of the IS strategy defined in the business plan measures for 1996–97.

  The key targets for the Vehicle Certification Agency are to:

  achieve a net unit cost target of £78.86.

  issue at least 98 per cent. of approval certificates error free. issue at least 97 per cent. of invoices error free.

  issue corrected documents where errors do occur within three working days in 95 per cent. of cases involving certificates and in 90 per cent. of cases involving invoices.

  audit at least 75 per cent. of the agency's approved quality procedures.

  receive a satisfactory appraisal report from the Department's chief mechanical engineer.

  Hackney Council
  Ms Abbott
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he next plans to visit Hackney council to discuss transport policy. [25681]

  Mr. Norris
  My right hon. Friend has no plans to visit Hackney council.

  Sea Empress Oil Spill
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the chief inspector of the marine accidents investigation branch intends to interview the right hon. Members for Peterborough (Dr. Mawhinney), for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor) and for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) and Lord Goschen in connection with his investigation into the Sea Empress disaster. [27185]

  Mr. Norris
  The question of who MAIB inspectors should interview, and when, in the course of any investigation is a matter for the chief inspector of marine accidents.

  Esso Mersey Explosion
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps were taken by the marine accidents investigation branch to contact Mill Bay Engineering concerning the inquiry into the explosion on board the Esso Mersey on 4 September 1991. [27184]
  456
  Mr. Norris
  The marine accidents investigation branch has been in correspondence with Mill Bay Engineering Co. Ltd. on a regular basis in connection with the Esso Mersey investigation since 1993. The investigation was re-opened in September 1994 after the emergence of new evidence. Mill Bay Engineering Co. Ltd. was sent an advance copy of the report of the re-opened investigation in accordance with section 9(4) of the Merchant Shipping (Accident Reporting and Investigation) Regulations 1994.

  Marine Accidents Investigation Branch Reports
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the usual procedure for submitting draft reports of the marine accidents investigation branch to those individuals and organisations that are referred to or criticised in marine accidents investigation branch reports. [27186]

  Mr. Norris
  The procedures for submitting draft reports of inspector's inquiries undertaken by the marine accidents investigation branch to individuals and organisations which are criticised in them are governed by regulations 9(4) of the Merchant Shipping (Accident Reporting and Investigation) Regulations 1994. There is no requirement relating to those who are only referred to in reports.

  The regulations require that if, in the opinion of the chief inspector of marine accidents, the reputation of any person is likely to be adversely affected by the report, that person shall be served with a copy of the draft report or that part which affects him. That person is allowed a 28-day period to make representations to the chief inspector who must then consider the representations and notify the person(s) concerned of his conclusions and any changes he intends to make to the report. A further 28-day period is then allowed for the submission of alternative text by the person(s) where passages remain in dispute. Where alternative texts have been submitted, these are to be published as an appendix to the report unless the Secretary of State considers that there is good reason not to do so.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Social Security Agency
  Mr. Thomason
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what performance targets have been set for the Social Security Agency for the current financial year. [27710]

  Mr. Moss
  The targets are included in the agency's 1996–97 business plan, which was published today. A copy of the plan will be placed in the Library. The targets are in line with the Government's policy of improving the service provided to customers and fully support the standards established in the Northern Ireland citizens charter. I am satisfied that the targets present a demanding challenge for the agency. They are as follows:

  1. BENEFIT CLEARANCE TIMES1

  Social fund crisis loans

  On the day the need arises2

  Income support

  71 per cent. in five days

  90 per cent. in 13 days

  457

  Incapacity benefit

  65 per cent. in 10 days

  85 per cent. in 30 days

  Child benefit

  68 per cent. in 10 days

  94 per cent. in 30 days

  Family credit

  60 per cent. in 13 days

  95 per cent. in 42 days

  Disability living allowance

  65 per cent. in 30 days

  85 per cent. in 53 days

  Unemployment benefit

  75 per cent. in 12 days

  85 per cent. in 53 days

  2. BENEFIT ACCURACY

  Income support

  to pay the correct amount in at least 87 per cent. of cases

  Incapacity benefit

  to pay the correct amount in at least 94 per cent. of cases

  Child benefit

  to pay the correct amount in at least 98 per cent. of cases

  Family credit

  to pay the correct amount in at least 93 per cent. of cases

  Disability living allowance

  to pay the correct amount in at least 98 per cent. of cases

  Unemployment benefit

  to pay the correct amount in at least 97 per cent. of cases

  3. CUSTOMER SATISFACTION

  390 per cent. of customers to regard the agency's service as satisfactory or better

  4. FINANCIAL RECOVERY

  recovery of social fund loans—£23.06 million

  recovery of income support overpayments—£1.80 million recovery of centralised benefits overpayments—£0.46 million

  benefit savings from detection and prevention of fraud—£14 million

  sign-offs as a result of anti-fraud activity—4,0004

  to carry out 3, 000 national insurance contributions surveys, including 600 employer educational visits

  identify £1.50 million class 1 arrears as a result of compliance work

  recovery of social fund loans—£23.06 million

  5. RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

  to live within a gross allocation of £36.61 million for social fund loans and community care grants

  to live within the agency's gross budget allocation

  to achieve cash efficiency savings of the order of £5.5 million

  Notes

  1 In all cases, clearance time is measured from the date of receipt of a claim or application in the office to the date on which the claim or application is decided. The measure, therefore, excludes the time taken to issue notification of the decision and any payment.

  2 Monitored against 95 per cent. in one day.

  3 The customer satisfaction target covers a two-year period and will be measured by independent survey in 1996–97.

  4 New target.

  Free Bus Passes
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what has been the annual cost of free bus passes in each education and library board area in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement. [26594]

  Mr. Ancram
  The annual cost of concessionary tickets for use on public transport to each education and library board in the last five years is set out in the following table:

  Expenditure £000

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Belfast

  598

  750

  851

  935

  984

  North-eastern

  4,722

  4,790

  5,215

  5,448

  5,786

  South-eastern

  3,727

  4,340

  4,736

  5,095

  5,454

  Southern

  3,360

  3,761

  4,005

  4,221

  4,510

  Westem

  1,894

  2,544

  3,009

  3,040

  3,144

  Total

  14,301

  16,185

  17,816

  18,739

  19,878

  Pig Feed Plant, West Belfast
  Dr. Hendron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement concerning the health implications of the blockage in the pig feed plant of Andrews Mill in west Belfast in February. [26541]

  Mr. Moss
  The problem was investigated by the Eastern health and social services board and Belfast city council environmental health department, who are satisfied that there are no health implications.

  Local Government
  Mr. Nicholas Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps are currently being taken to revise and develop local government in Northern Ireland. [26542]

  Mr. Ancram
  Our aim is to strengthen democracy by returning more responsibility and accountability to locally elected representatives in Northern Ireland on a basis which is widely acceptable. The all-party negotiations commencing on 10 June offer an opportunity to move in this direction.

  Prisons (Library Facilities)
  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what were the costs of providing library facilities broken down by(a) books and (b) other costs at (i) the Maze prison and (ii) Maghaberry prison, in each of the last five years. [26732]

  Sir John Wheeler
  Responsibility for the subject in question has been delegated to the Prison Service under its chief executive, Mr. Alan Shannon. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Alan Shannon to Mr. Robert McCartney, dated 30 April 1996:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question about the cost of providing library facilities at HMP Maze and HMP Maghaberry in each of the last 5 years.
  The information is as follows:
  459

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  HMP Maghaberry

  Books

  nil

  nil

  nil

  nil

  nil

  Other costs

  45,358

  44,739

  60,713

  62,411

  64,659

  HMP Maze

  Books

  nil

  nil

  nil

  nil

  3,019

  Other costs

  48,628

  53,012

  59,086

  61,942

  63,798

  The cost of books is normally met by the South Eastern Education & Library Board. The charge of £3,019 to the Prison Service in 1995/96 was to cover the replacement cost of stock damaged during a riot at Maze in March 1995.

  Royal Ulster Constabulary
  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people recruited to full-time membership of the RUC during the period 1 October 1995 to 31 March 1996 had previously served as members of(a) the RUC reserve (b) Her Majesty's armed forces. [26548]

  Sir John Wheeler
  Records for recruitment to the RUC regular force during the period 1 October 1995 to 31 March 1996 are as follows:

  Number

  Recruits with previous RUCR full-time service only

  28

  Recruits with previous RUCR part-time service only

  13

  Recruits with both RUCR full-time and RUCR part-time service

  4

  Recruits with previous HM forces service only

  6

  Recruits with both HM forces and RUCR service

  5

  Recruits with no previous HM forces or RUCR service

  55

  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people were recruited to full-time membership of the RUC during the period 1 October 1995 to 31 March 1996. [26549]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The total number of people recruited to full-time membership of the RUC regular force during the period 1 October to 31 March 1996 was 111.

  Health and Safety Agency
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much money has been spent on the Health and Safety Agency for Northern Ireland in each year since 1990–91. [26221]

  Mr. Ancram
  [holding answer 22 April 1996]: The Department of Economic Development has funded the Health and Safety Agency for Northern Ireland in accordance with the following table:

  Financial year

  Amount of funding £

  1990–91

  146,000

  1991–92

  165,500

  1992–93

  173,000

  1993–94

  222,000

  1994–95

  261,000

  1995–96

  314,000

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Procedural Changes
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Lord President of the Council what representations urging procedural changes he has received since publication of the Scott report. [24703]

  Mr. Newton
  The Government deposited in the Library of the House on 25 March 1996 a document entitled "The Timetable for Taking Forward Recommendations of the Report of the Inquiry into the Export of Defence Equipment and Dual-Use Goods to Iraq and Related Prosecutions". As this document indicates, the Government are currently inviting comments on a range of the issues covered by the Scott report, and a number of representations have now been received. These will be given careful consideration and changes to current Government procedures will be made where there would be benefit in doing so. If any such changes have implications for House of Commons procedures, these too would of course be considered in the appropriate way.

  Northern Ireland Legislative Committees
  Mr. Robert McCartney
  To ask the Lord President of the Council which hon. Members representing Northern Ireland constituencies have been appointed since January 1995 to Standing Committees on delegated legislation nominated to consider Northern Ireland Orders in Council. [25768]

  Mr. Newton
  The following Northern Ireland Members have been appointed to Delegated Legislation Committees relating to NI orders:

  Member

  Dates

  Appointed

  Attended

  Beggs, Mr. Roy

  7 June 1995

  7 June 1995

  7 December 1995

  7 December 1995

  7 January 1996

  17 January 1996

  Forsythe, Mr. Clifford

  17 October 1995

  17 October 1995

  31 October 1995

  31 October 1995

  Hendron, Dr. Joe

  —

  —

  Hume, Mr. John

  —

  —

  McCartney, Mr. Robert

  —

  —

  McCrea, Rev. William

  —

  —

  McGrady, Mr. Eddie

  —

  —

  Maginnis, Mr. Ken

  16 February 1995

  16 February 1995

  22 February 1995

  —

  18 October 1995

  18 October 1995

  29 November 1995

  —

  28 February 1996

  28 February 1996

  Mallon, Mr. Seamus

  —

  —

  Molyneaux, Sir James

  25 November 1995,

  25 November 1995

  Paisley, Rev. Ian

  —

  —

  Robinson, Mr. Peter

  —

  —

  Ross, Mr. William

  1 February 1995

  1 February 1995

  Smyth, Rev. Martin

  28 February 1995

  28 February 1995

  Taylor, Mr. John D.

  7 February 1996

  7 February 1996

  Trimble, Mr. David

  4 July 1995

  4 July 1995

  Walker, Mr. A. Cecil

  —

  —

  The right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sir J. Molyneaux) was appointed to the Chairmen's Panel this Session, but this has not been reflected in the table.

SCOTLAND

  Machine Guns
  Mr. George Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the number of exemptions under the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1994 in respect of machine guns in each of the last five years; and apart from royal ordnance, what is the total number of machine guns covered by these exemptions. [26428]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  There are no exemptions under the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1994.

  Judicial Statistics
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish the civil judicial statistics relating to the Scottish courts for the years 1994 and 1995. [26965]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The statistics for 1994 will be published shortly; those for 1995 are still in preparation.

  Victoria Hospital, Glasgow
  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 will apply in respect of staff at the Victoria hospital, Glasgow following the award of the contract in respect of support services. [27063]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  This is a matter for the trust and the company winning the contract to consider with their legal advisers. In most cases where employment is transferred as a result of market testing, TUPE usually applies.

  Cancer
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many registered cases of cancer there were in Scotland in(a) 1985, (b) 1989, (c) 1992 and (d) 1995; and if he will make a statement. [27030]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The number of registered cases of cancer—malignant neoplasms—in each of these years is as follows:

  1985: 26,161

  1989: 26,657

  1992: 28,827

  19951: 21,997.

  11995 data not yet complete

  National Health Service Trusts
  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list those core services which NHS trusts in Scotland may contract out through the competitive tendering process. [27048]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Since 1983, the Government's policy has been for domestic, cleaning, catering, laundry and similar non-core support services to be routinely market tested. It is for NHS trusts to decide which other services would benefit from being subjected to market testing in response to local circumstances, ensuring that the best quality health care and use of resources is achieved.
  462
  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many NHS trusts in Scotland have put support services out to competitive tender; and in how many of these cases an in-house tender was received. [27051]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  By 1991, virtually all hospital ancillary services in the NHS in Scotland had been put out to tender by health boards. As NHS trusts were established, the trust boards assumed responsibility for the management of the existing contracts and for the market testing of such other services as they considered appropriate. Comprehensive information on the number of in-house tenders received is not centrally available, but from a total of 410 contracts awarded following market testing since December 1987,65 per cent. were won by in-house teams.

  Male Rape
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many cases of male rape were reported in Scotland in(a) 1985 and (b) 1995; and if he will make a statement. [27013]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information is not available in the form requested. The term "male rape" is not used in Scots law. The act which that term describes, namely non-consensual anal intercourse with a man, can be prosecuted in Scotland either as the common law crime of sodomy or as a statutory offence under section 13 of the Criminal Law (Consolidation) (Scotland) Act 1995, that is, commission of a homosexual act other than in private or without the consent of both parties or with a person under the age of 18.

  It is not possible to identify within the statistics for the statutory offence those which would equate with the term "male rape". Figures for the number of allegations of the common law offence of sodomy reported to the police are not available, but figures for the number of prosecutions are available from 1988 onwards. In 1988 there were 11 such prosecutions and in 1994, the latest year for which such figures are available, there were 15 prosecutions.

  Sheriff Court Fees Order
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to amend the Sheriff Court Fees Order to provide that no sheriff court dues shall be payable under the order for a party, who would otherwise be liable to pay, who is in receipt of income support under part VII of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992. [26966]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. Friend has no plans to extend current arrangements for exemption from court dues. The vast majority of people on income support will qualify for legal aid, which would include the payment of court fees.

  Scottish Arts Council
  Mr. Elletson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the future of the Scottish Arts Council arts collection. [27882]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  As part of the Scottish Arts Council's collecting initiative, one of the aims of which is to increase public access to works in its art collection, the council, with the agreement of the
  463
  Treasury, will now begin to donate works from its collection to museums, galleries and other public bodies in Scotland for display to the public.

  Pensions Agency
  Mr. Elletson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what key performance targets he has set for the Scottish Office Pensions Agency for 1996–97. [27883]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  I have set the Scottish Office Pensions Agency the following key targets for 1996–97, which cover important areas of service delivery and steps to improve efficiency and effectiveness:-

  to ensure that awards and transfer payments are accurate to within 1 per cent. of their value in 99 per cent. of cases;

  to pay on time 99 per cent. of all pensions and lump sums where the target date for receipt of claims is met;

  to make transfer payments within four weeks of members' final instructions to transfer pension rights;

  to analyse the results of a survey to measure customer satisfaction with administration of the teachers' pension scheme and produce an action plan, by December 1996;

  to complete the development and implementation of a new pensions administration IT system. by December 1996;

  to reduce total identified operating costs per member/beneficiary by 8 per cent.;

  to amend all schemes for which SOPA is responsible to take account of the Pensions Act 1995.

  Hospital Consultants
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many vacancies for consultants there are in each NHS trust hospital in Scotland; what discussions he has had with the medical profession with respect to these vacancies; and what steps he has taken to overcome the shortage. [27239]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 29 April 1996]: The information requested is shown at NHS trust level in the table. Data are not collected centrally for individual hospitals. My right hon. Friend met representatives of the medical profession in September 1995 and discussed medical work force issues generally. To increase the number of candidates for consultant posts, we have continued to increase the number of doctors in higher training.

  Consultant vacancies in Scotland at 30 September 1995

  Number

  Aberdeen Royal Hospitals NHS Trust

  17

  Angus NHS Trust

  1

  Argyll and Bute NHS Trust

  0

  Ayrshire and Arran Community Healthcare NHS Trust

  6

  Borders Community Health Services NHS Trust

  1

  Borders General Hospital NHS Trust

  1

  Caithness and Sutherland NHS Trust

  0

  Central Scotland Healthcare NHS Trust

  6

  Dumfries and Galloway Acute and Maternity Hospitals NHS Trust

  2

  Dumfries and Galloway Community Health NHS Trust

  1

  Dundee Healthcare NHS Trust

  0

  Dundee Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust

  0

  East and Midlothian NHS Trust

  5

  Edinburgh Healthcare NHS Trust

  2

  Edinburgh Sick Children's NHS Trust

  5

  Falkirk and District Royal Infirmary NHS Trust

  0

  Fife Healthcare NHS Trust

  2

  Glasgow Dental Hospital and School NHS Trust

  1

  464

  Consultant vacancies in Scotland at 30 September 1995

  Number

  Glasgow Royal Infirmary University NHS Trust

  8

  Grampian Healthcare NHS Trust

  7

  Greater Glasgow Community and Mental Health Services NHS Trust

  6

  Hairmyres and Stonehouse Hospitals NHS Trust

  5

  Highland Communities NHS Trust

  2

  Inverclyde Royal NHS Trust

  8

  Kirkcaldy Acute Hospitals NHS Trust

  4

  Lanarkshire Healthcare NHS Trust

  6

  Law Hospital NHS Trust

  14

  Lomond Healthcare NHS Trust

  6

  Monklands and Bellshill Hospitals NHS Trust

  5

  Moray Health Services NHS Trust

  7

  North Ayrshire and Arran NHS Trust

  9

  Perth and Kinross Healthcare NHS Trust

  5

  Queen Margaret Hospital NHS Trust

  7

  Raigmore Hospital NHS Trust

  3

  Renfrewshire Healthcare NHS Trust

  2

  Royal Alexander Hospital NHS Trust

  5

  Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh NHS Trust

  0

  South Ayrshire Hospitals NHS Trust

  0

  Southern General Hospital NHS Trust

  8

  Stirling Royal Infirmary NHS Trust

  7

  Stobhill NHS Trust

  6

  Victoria Infirmary NHS Trust

  0

  West Glasgow Hospitals University NHS Trust

  0

  West Lothian NHS Trust

  0

  Western General Hospitals NHS Trust

  4

  Yorkhill NHS Trust

  6

  Total

  190

  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received on the shortage of consultants in NHS trust hospitals in Scotland; and if he will make a statement. [27238]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 29 April 1996]: My right hon. Friend has received various representations on medical work force issues in Scotland. The number of hospital consultants in Scotland rose from 2,216 in 1990 to 2,490 in 1995, an increase of over 12 per cent.

  Film Industry (Hydra Associates)
  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when and by whom the decision was made to commission Hydra Associates to report on the film industry in Scotland. [27269]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 29 April 1996]: Hydra Associates was chosen from a short list of four consultants on 30 October 1995 by a panel consisting of representatives of Scottish Enterprise/Glasgow development agency, Highlands and Islands Enterprise and the Scottish Office.

  Ms Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the remit for the report of Hydra Associates into the film industry in Scotland; and how much it cost. [27270]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 29 April 1996]: The Hydra Associates report "Scotland on Screen: the Development of the Film and Television Industry in Scotland", which was published on 18 April, cost £125,000. Its terms of reference are reproduced as appendix O of the report.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Parcelforce
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will review the procedures adopted by Parcelforce for dealing with complaints and claims for loss or damage to parcels posted to the United Kingdom from overseas. [23404]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  No, these procedures are an operational matter for Parcelforce. If the hon. Member has a particular complaint, he should contact the managing director of Parcelforce.

  Land Mines
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) what plans he has to ban the manufacture, export and supply of land mines by British companies, and when; [24997]

  (2) if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's policy on the manufacture, supply and export of land mines. [24996]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office to the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) on 23 April 1996,Official Report, column 84.

  British Energy
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) if he will limit the extent to which pay for directors of British Energy can be increased after privatisation; [26621]

  (2) what discussions have taken place between his Department and British Energy regarding directors' remuneration after privatisation; [26619]

  (3) if he will list the share options and other bonuses available to directors of British Energy after privatisation; [26618]

  (4) if he will name the top 10 paid employees of British Energy with their (a) pay and (b) other remuneration (i) currently and (ii) a year ago. [26620]

  Mr. Lang
  Policy on executive remuneration for the future will be given in the pathfinder prospectus for British Energy, to be published in the summer, and will include full details of current executive pay. The current basic annual salaries of the executive directors of British Energy plc are:

  Dr. Robert Hawley (Chief Executive): £200,000

  Mr. Michael Kirwan (Finance Director): £179,137 (inclusive of 14.1 per cent. contribution for personal pension)

  Basic salaries paid to Dr. Hawley and Mr. Kirwan in 1995–96 were £190,485 and £171,496 respectively. The latter figure also includes 14.1 per cent. pension contribution. Full remuneration details in respect of 1995–96 for Dr. Hawley and Mr. Kirwan will be included in the annual report and accounts of Nuclear Electric plc.

  Export Promotion
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the revisions to his Department's objectives for export promotion since those listed in table 1.3 of "Overseas Trade Services: Assistance to Exporters a report by the Comptroller and Auditor General" (HC 293); and if he will make a statement. [26704]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The revisions referred to by the Comptroller and Auditor General affect only the objectives of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. My Department's objectives for exports remain as listed in his report. I refer the hon. Member to the annual report of the Department of Trade and Industry, which is in the Library of the House.

  Current Account Outturns
  Mr. Shore
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the current account outturn of(a) the United Kingdom, (b) Germany and (c) France in each year since 1990; and what is the estimate of the current account outturns for each of these countries for 1996. [26887]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  Information on Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries' current account balances is published in "OECD Economic Outlook". The UK's current account balance for 1995 was published by the Office for National Statistics in "First Release CSO (96)68". Both of these publications are available in the Library of the House.

  Coal Mining Areas Recreation Facilities
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) if he will list the sites in the British Coal recreational package which were intended to be transferred to the National Playing Fields Association and the Coal Industries Social Welfare Organisation together with the parliamentary constituency in which they lie; [27258]

  (2) if he will list separately how many football, cricket, rugby and hockey pitches, bowling greens, tennis courts and children's play areas stand to be preserved within British Coal's recreational package; and what area of land each of these represents. [27257]

  Mr. Page
  These are matters for British Coal.

  Certification Fees
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is his reason for increasing the fee payable to the certification officer on application for approval of a proposed instrument of amalgamation or transfer of engagements. [27172]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The increase in fee is required to recover the full cost of providing a service to process applications for approval of proposed instruments.

  Mr. Prentice
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is his reason for increasing the fee payable by a trade union for a certificate of independence. [27171]

  Mr. Taylor
  The increase in fee is required to recover the full cost of providing a service to process applications for certificates. In 1993–94, when the fee covered just 10 per cent. of the full cost, the Government decided to
  467
  move in stages to full cost recovery. The level of fee has subsequently risen in steps and 1996–97 will be the first year in which the full cost will be recovered.

  British Telecommunications
  Mr. Renton
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment he has made of the judgment of the Director General of Telecommunications in relation to the proposed pricing regime for British Telecommunications plc; and if he will make a statement. [27397]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  The Director General of Telecommunications has not yet made final proposals relating to the future price cap to be applied to BT's prices, so I am unable to comment on the judgment displayed by the outcome. I am, however, satisfied that the director general has conducted a full and wide-ranging consultation, taking comments from those in the industry as well as users, and seeking advice from a specially convened panel of advisors. The fullness of the consultation process is a sign that the outcome will be based on all relevant considerations, and will be consistent with liberalisation and competition, which have delivered lower prices and higher quality services to consumers.

  Mercury
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the total production of mercury in the United Kingdom; and how much mercury was(a) imported and (b) exported in the last year for which figures are available. [27401]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  There was no recorded primary or mine production of mercury within the United Kingdom in 1995. No statistics are available for secondary mercury production recovered from scrap. In 1995, 3.9 tonnes of mercury—£39,000 by value—was imported into the United Kingdom, and 224.3 tonnes of mercury—£108,000 by value—was exported from the United Kingdom.

  Source Customs and Excise trade data SITC 522.27

  Lead
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how much lead was produced in the United Kingdom; and how much was(a) imported and (b) exported in the last year for which figures are available. [27399]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  Details of the quantities of production, imports and exports of unwrought lead in the United Kingdom in 1995 are given below.

  United Kingdom lead production, exports and imports, 1995, (in thousand tonnes)

  Production

  Exports

  Imports

  Ore/concentrates (lead content)

  1.0

  0.1

  52.7

  Lead bullion

  38.3

  55.8

  121.1

  Refined lead

  317.7

  76.2

  45.8

  of which—primary

  150.2

  —

  —

  —secondary

  167.5

  —

  —

  Note:

  In the UK, lead bullion is produced from imported ores and concentrates. Primary refined lead is produced from imported bullion. Secondary production is refined from secondary and scrap material and domestic ores. Production and trade of semi-manufactures is excluded from the above figures.
  468
  Source:

  Production—World Metal Statistics, April 1996, World Bureau of Metal Statistics.

  Trade—Customs and Excise trade data.

  Council for Science and Technology
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the members who serve on the Council for Science and Technology. [27180]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade chairs the Council for Science and Technology on behalf of the Prime Minister. The chief scientific adviser, Sir Robert May, is deputy chairman, and I also attend. There are 10 independent members of the council:

  Members

  Professor S. Kumar

  Professor of Manufacturing

  Bhattacharyya FEng

  Systems, University of Warwick

  Professor Sir Aaron Kluge OM PRS

  Director, Medical Research Council Laboratory of Molecular Biology; President of the Royal Society

  Sir Robin Nicholson FRS FEng

  Director, Pilkington plc

  Dr. Bridget Ogilvie FIBiol FRCPath

  Director, The Wellcome Trust

  Sir Ralph Robins FEng FRAeS

  Chairman, Rolls Royce plc

  Dr. Alan Rudge CBE FRS FEng

  Deputy Chief Executive, BT plc; Chairman, Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council

  Professor Sir Stewart Sutherland FBA

  Principal and Vice Chancellor, University of Edinburgh

  Sir Richard Sykes

  Deputy Chairman and Chief Executive, Glaxo Wellcome plc

  Mr. John Towers CBE

  Managing Director, Rover Group Ltd.

  Dr. Peter Williams CBE

  Chairman and Chief Executive, Oxford Instruments plc; Chairman, Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council

  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade on what dates the Council for Science and Technology has held meetings since it was set up; and what subjects were discussed at each of those meetings. [27182]

  Mr. Taylor
  The Council for Science and Technology has met, and discussed subjects, as follows:

  9 November 1993

  Working methods of the council

  1994 forward look of Government-funded science, engineering and technology

  Implementation of White Paper "Realising Our Potential: A Strategy for Science, Engineering and Technology"

  Technology foresight programme

  Future business of the council

  9 February 1994

  1994 forward look of Government-funded science, engineering and technology

  Government science and technology expenditure and wealth creation

  Supply and quality of teachers of mathematics, science and technology

  469

  26 May 1994

  The response of the Higher Education Funding Council to the White Paper on science, engineering and technology

  NHS research arrangements

  Women in science, engineering and technology

  28 September 1994

  Discussion of science, engineering and technology issues with the Prime Minister

  Industry, science and technology and innovation

  Defence and civil partnerships in research

  Technology and foresight programme

  7 December 1994

  Chief Scientific Adviser's consultation on the 1995 forward look

  "Transport and the Environment": report from the royal commission on environmental pollution

  Scrutiny of public sector research establishments

  Future business of the council

  13 February 1995

  Health research funding

  Technology foresight programme

  1995 forward look of Government-funded science, engineering and technology

  5 April 1995

  Technology foresight: working document

  19 July 1995

  Innovation and competitiveness—the DTI's role and the follow-up to technology foresight

  Implementing technology foresight and the foresight challenge

  18 December 1995

  Education and training

  Technology foresight programme: first progress report

  19 February 1996

  1996 forward look of Government-funded science, engineering and technology

  Towards a fifth European framework programme

  Programme of work for the council

  22 April 1995 (informal group of members)

  Higher education.

  Research Establishments (Redundancies)
  Mr. Ingram
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what estimate he has made of the redundancy costs associated with the future options being considered for each of the public sector research establishments. [27183]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  The prior options reviews of public sector research establishments are being undertaken in accordance with the guidance placed in the Library of the House on 26 January 1996. This requires the Departments and research councils carrying out the reviews to consider a range of options, including abolition, privatisation, contractorisation, rationalisation and, implicitly, no change.

  Ministers are currently considering the steering group reports of the first tranche of reviews. The overall purpose is to achieve high-quality research that represents the best value for money. Any potential redundancy costs would be taken into account in this consideration. Decisions will be announced as soon as possible.

  EU consumers councils
  Mr. Waller
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the outcome of the EU Consumers Council held on 23 April. [27771]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The Council agreed on priorities for EU consumer policy. The agreement underlined the need for proper enforcement of existing legislation and, where possible, its review and simplification. Some member states also attached importance to work on consumer concerns in relation to public utilities, financial services and informative labelling of products.

  The Council reached political agreement on a proposal for a directive on the indication of prices of products offered to consumers. This follows the Commission's commitment to review existing directives on subsidiarity grounds. The agreed proposal represents an important deregulatory measure which will permit member states to exempt small shops from the burden of unit pricing. It fully meets the UK objective of providing necessary protection for consumers while minimising the burden on small businesses.

  There was an orientation debate on two proposals related to consumer access to justice. The first was the proposed action plan for non-legislative initiatives to enable cheaper and quicker redress for consumers involved in cross-border disputes. There was general support for the principle of this initiative, though more work would be needed on the details. Secondly, a directive was proposed to improve protection of consumers in cross-border transactions by co-ordinating national provisions relating to injunctions against unlawful practices under a list of existing directives. The proposal would secure mutual recognition of the entities qualified to bring such actions in other member states. Again, there was considerable support for the principle, though I and a number of other representatives made clear that it was based on the proviso that a method of implementation could be found which would respect national legal procedures and modalities of law enforcement.

  There was an informal discussion of consumer confidence in relation to foodstuffs, particularly with regard to bovine spongiform encephalopathy—BSE. I set out the steps the United Kingdom Government had taken to protect consumers and explained why we regarded an export ban as unjustified and disproportionate.

  Electricity Industry
  Mr. Waller
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to liberalise the electricity regime. [27772]

  Mr. Eggar
  I propose to amend the provisions governing supply licence exemptions so as to enable local generators to offer their electricity to communities and to commercial and industrial customers without the additional burdens imposed by licences. This will put combined heat and power schemes and businesses who generate their own electricity predominantly for their own use in a better position to offer customers innovative alternatives to established suppliers.
  471
  On 1 April 1998, all customers of the public electricity suppliers will be able to choose their supplier. As we prepare for that new era of competition and choice, we need to ensure that local suppliers can also play their part by offering their services to small communities and local industry and commerce.

  Following extensive consultation with the Director General of Electricity Supply, electricity companies, consumer groups, and other interested parties, we have reached preliminary conclusions on the strategic objectives which will be pursued in the drafting of a new Electricity (Class Exemptions from the Requirement for a Licence) Order.

  I propose, first, to allow generators to supply on-site to any commercial or industrial customers, up to a maximum limit of 100MW on each site. Secondly, I propose that exempt on-site supply to domestic customers should be permitted, up to a maximum of 1MW on each site, subject to a maximum price to be set in the new exemptions order. Discussions are under way on a voluntary code of practice for those suppliers who will benefit from the exemptions, and who want to supply electricity to domestic customers. The new exemptions would be in addition to existing exemption for on-site suppliers.

  It is proposed that the current geographical definitions of a site would be retained, with an additional alternative site definition based on local electricity networks, where the wires between the supplier and the customers are owned by either party, or by both jointly.

  Other changes to the current order will reflect the need to remove distinctions between electricity from the public electricity suppliers and that from second tier suppliers after 1 April 1998 for the purposes of resale. No changes are envisaged to exemptions for electricity generators or offshore generators and suppliers.

  As the process of drafting the new order progresses, further consideration will be given to whether any of the provisions should be brought into force before 1998.

  These principles commanded widespread support in our public consultation at the beginning of the year. I believe that they should provide a balance between the need to encourage local community and industrial suppliers by reducing the regulatory burden on them, and the need to maintain the integrity of the integrated electricity network.

  Exports (Iraq)
  Mr. Waller
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what conditions apply to companies wishing to supply Iraq in respect of(a) humanitarian goods and (b) services. [27810]

  Mr. Nelson
  Discussions about the supply of humanitarian goods to Iraq after sanctions have been relaxed require a licence from my Department before they can take place. Applications for such licences will be considered according to the circumstances of each particular case. Discussions now about the provision of services to Iraq after sanctions have been relaxed would not require a licence unless those discussions also constituted an act calculated to promote the supply of goods to or from Iraq. Such acts require a licence and applications for licences are also considered according to the circumstances of each particular case.

  Coal Reserves
  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is his present estimate of accessible and proven coal reserves in the United Kingdom; and what reduction of such reserves has been recorded following the loss of collieries over the last decade. [26359]

  Mr. Page
  The remaining reserves of coal at existing mines were estimated in 1994 to be around 1 billion tonnes. Comparable figures for subsequent or earlier years are not available.

  Mr. Hardy
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what stocks of British coal were held by(a) British Coal and (b) the generating companies at the end of each quarter over the last five years; and what guidance he offers as to the level which should be maintained. [26374]

  Mr. Page
  Information on coal stocks is set out in the table.

  Thousand tonnes

  Undistributed stocks1

  Stocks held by electricity generators2

  End March 1991

  8,325

  26,522

  End June 1991

  10,193

  28,212

  End September 1991

  10,599

  31,680

  End December 1991

  10,977

  30,648

  End March 1992

  10,655

  31,174

  End June 1992

  13,120

  31,784

  End September 1992

  14,239

  33,685

  End December 1992

  13,714

  32,173

  End March 1993

  12,136

  34,316

  End June 1993

  14,084

  32,432

  End September 1993

  15,987

  32,194

  End December 1993

  15,989

  28,579

  End March 1994

  13,060

  24,981

  End June 1994

  12,724

  20,916

  End September 1994

  12,772

  18,821

  End December 1994

  11,271

  14,102

  End March 1995

  9,031

  9,921

  End June 1995

  8,252

  10,031

  End September 1995

  7,940

  11,555

  End December 1995

  7,219

  9,677

  Notes:

  1 Stocks held at collieries and opencast sites.

  2 Held at coal-fired power stations belonging to major power producers.

  Source:

  Table 6 of Energy Trends.

  I am currently reviewing the level of fossil fuel stocks to be held by generators.

  Compliance Unit
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many staff are employed in the single market compliance unit. [27073]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  [holding answer 29 April 1996]: The single market compliance unit, which was relaunched as action single market on 28 March, has three full-time staff helping UK businesses overcome single market trade barriers. Action single market now incorporates work on tackling illegal state aids in other member states. It has two additional staff who spend part of their time on this, as well as dealing with more general state aids matters. Furthermore, action single market draws on a wider network of staff, including those in British embassies

  473
  overseas, in assessing and pursuing complaints, involving senior officials and Ministers where the opportunity arises.

  EU Directives
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the directives which have affected his Department in each of the past three years and(a) the United Kingdom legislation introduced as a result of the directives, (b) the United Kingdom legislation which goes beyond the minimum standards set out in the directives and (c) the clauses within each piece of United Kingdom legislation which amplify the minimum standards set out in the directives. [27083]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  [holding answer 29 April 1996]: I have placed information on the directives and their implementing regulations, for which the DTI is responsible, in the Library of the House.

  Technology Foresight
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how much money has been allocated to the technology foresight programme; and over that time period. [27007]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  [holding answer 29 April 1996]: New initiatives worth £200 million over four years from public and private funding are already in place. This figure comprises £36 million to fund research equipment in foresight priority areas during 1996–97, £60 million for the foresight challenge extending over the next four years, and £70 million for new LINK programmes responding to foresight priorities. The balance is made up of new components of mainstream research programmes in research councils and Government Departments, such as 14 new Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council programmes for which £15 million of grants have been awarded, and the DTI's information society initiative—£35 million over four years—which addresses several priority areas identified in the foresight programme. I expect further initiatives to be reported.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Severe Disability Premium
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) if he will list by local authority(a) the number of cases where arrears of severe disability premium have now been paid and (b) the average amount of the arrears paid by each authority; [20272]

  (2) when the hon. Member for Burnley will receive an answer to his question of 8 March on cases of arrears of severe disability premiums. [27050]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The administration of income support is a matter for Peter Mathison, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Peter Pike, dated 29 April 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your Parliamentary Question of 8 March asking if he will list by Local Authority (LA), (a) the number of cases where arrears of
  474
  severe disability premium (SDP) have now been paid; (b) the average amount of arrears paid by each authority; and your further question of 23 April.
  I apologise for the delay in responding to your original question.
  The information is not available in the format requested. Income Support (IS) statistics are collated by Benefit Agency (BA) Districts and not by LA areas. Statistics are not routinely collated on the number of IS awards which include premiums. This information could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.
  However a statistical sampling exercise was undertaken in 26 offices within 25 BA Districts. From this it is estimated that nationally arrears of SDP amounting to £88.67 million have been paid on approximately 24,000 cases with ongoing entitlement to IS.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Incapacity Benefit
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what is the average length of time for(a) an incapacity benefit appeal submission to be sent to the independent tribunal service and (b) an incapacity benefit appeal to be heard; [25794]

  (2) how many appeals against the disallowance of incapacity benefit are currently outstanding; [25796]

  (3) how many incapacity benefit appeals have been heard, and how many were successful. [25793]

  Mr. Burt
  The information is in the table.

  Incapacity benefit appeals

  Figures

  Average time between lodgement and submiision to ITS

  5 weeks

  Average time between submission to ITS and hearing

  12 weeks

  Number outstanding

  21,460

  Number heard

  4,906

  Number of decisions in favour ofappellant

  2,270

  1. Figures are to the end of February.

  2. Figures are for all incapacity benefit appeals.

  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security(a) how many medical examinations for the all-work test of capacity have been scheduled but have not taken place, (b) how many examinations have been performed, (c) how many people have failed to attend an examination without good cause and (d) how many people have been found capable of work for (i) February and (ii) March 1996. [26341]

  Mr. Burt
  The available information is in the table.

  February 1996

  March 1996

  Examinations scheduled, but which did not take place1

  25,143

  23,624

  Examinations performed

  56,247

  59,121

  Failed to attend examination without good cause

  413

  472

  Found capable of work2

  14,289

  15,490

  1 Excludes cases in which scheduled appointments were re-allocated following advance notice from a customer that he would be unable to attend.

  2 Includes cases found capable following failure to return the questionnaire without good cause or failure to attend examination without good cause.

  Severe Weather Payments
  Mr. Shore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many households in the London borough of Tower Hamlets qualified for severe weather payments during the period 1 November 1995 to 1 April 1996; and on how many occasions. [26297]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The administration of the social fund is a matter for Peter Mathison, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the right hon. Member.

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Peter Shore, dated 29 April 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking how many households in the London Borough of Tower Hamlets qualified for severe weather payments during the period 1st November 1995 to 1st April 1996; and on how many occasions.
  The information is not available in the form you have requested and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.
  However I am able to provide you with the number of Cold Weather Payments (CWPs) made by each Benefits Agency (BA) District in your constituency, during the period 1 November 1995 and 1 April 1996. Statistics are kept for BA Districts and not for specific geographical areas. BA customers living in the London Borough of Tower Hamlets are dealt with by the City East District or Hackney and Islington District. Postal codes within the areas covered by these Districts are linked to the weather station at Heathrow Airport.
  During the period 1 November 1995 to 1 April 1996, Heathrow Airport weather station identified one recorded period of cold weather from 24 December 1995 to 30 December 1995 inclusive.
  The information available is shown in the attached Annex.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Cold Weather payments 1 November 1995–31 March 1996

  Period 24 to 30 December 1995

  City East District

  Hackney and Islington District

  18,076

  27,615

  Figures are provisional and subject to change.

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Heppell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will provide a month-by-month breakdown of the number of temporary staff employed by the CSA at its Brierly Hill centre since the CSA was set up. [26447]

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the chief executive, Miss Ann Chant. She will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Ann Chant to Mr. John Heppell, dated 29 April 1996:
  I am replying to your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about Child Support Agency staffing.
  The table attached shows a monthly breakdown of casual staff and also those appointed on fixed term contracts at the Agency's Brierley Hill Centre for the periodApril 1993 to March 1996 inclusive.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Monthly breakdown of casual and fixed term contract (FTC) staff1 at the CSA's Brierley Hill Centre for the period 1993 to March 1996

  Month

  Casuals

  FTC

  Total

  1993

  476

  Monthly breakdown of casual and fixed term contract (FTC) staff1 at the CSA's Brierley Hill Centre for the period 1993 to March 1996

  Month

  Casuals

  FTC

  Total

  April

  0

  1

  1

  May

  0

  1

  1

  June

  0

  1

  1

  July

  0

  1

  1

  August

  0

  1

  1

  September

  9

  1

  10

  October

  11

  8

  19

  November

  17

  28

  45

  December

  18

  28

  46

  1994

  January

  62

  30

  92

  February

  82

  30

  112

  March

  86

  30

  116

  April

  98

  29

  127

  May

  113

  8

  121

  June

  114

  6

  120

  July

  128

  5

  133

  August

  83

  5

  88

  September

  71

  3

  74

  October

  75

  1

  76

  November

  72

  1

  73

  December

  71

  1

  72

  1995

  January

  49

  1

  50

  February

  46

  1

  47

  March

  20

  1

  21

  April

  13

  1

  14

  May

  12

  1

  13

  June

  7

  1

  8

  July

  5

  1

  6

  August

  4

  1

  5

  September

  0

  1

  1

  October

  2

  2

  4

  November

  1

  2

  3

  December

  1

  2

  3

  1996

  January

  1

  2

  3

  February

  1

  1

  2

  March

  0

  1

  1

  1 Casuals are temporary appointments usually for a maximum of 12 months or exceptionally 24 months. Fixed term contracts are for a period between 1 and 5 years.

  State Pensions
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish a table indicating for each of the last 17 years(a) the level of the basic state pension, (b) average weekly earnings and (c) the percentage of average weekly earnings as represented by the basic state pension. [26816]

  Mr. Heald
  The available information is in the table. The information for April 1996 earnings is not yet available.

  Date of uprating

  Rate of basic retirement pension (£pw)

  Average earnings1 (£pw)

  Rate as a percentage of average earnings

  November 1979

  23.30

  100.62

  23.2

  November 1980

  27.15

  120.24

  22.6

  November 1981

  29.60

  132.41

  22.4

  November 1982

  32.85

  142.42

  23.1

  November 1983

  34.05

  156.73

  21.7

  November 1984

  35.80

  166.98

  21.4

  477

  Date of uprating

  Rate of basic retirement pension (£pw)

  Average earnings1 (£pw)

  Rate as a percentage of average earnings

  November 1985

  38.30

  178.71

  21.4

  July 1986

  38.70

  189.12

  20.5

  April 1987

  39.50

  198.90

  19.9

  April 1988

  41.15

  218.40

  18.8

  April 1989

  43.60

  239.70

  18.2

  April 1990

  46.90

  263.10

  17.8

  April 1991

  52.00

  284.70

  18.3

  April 1992

  54.15

  304.60

  17.8

  April 1993

  56.10

  316.90

  17.7

  April 1994

  57.60

  325.70

  17.7

  April 1994

  58.85

  336.30

  17.5

  Note:

  1 Average earning are for all full-time adult employees.

  Source:

  The Abstract of Statistics for Social Security and Contributions and Indices of Prices and Earnings, 1995 Edition, and the Employment Gazette.

  Disability Working Allowance
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 14 March,Official Report, column 760, what assumptions underlay the answer to the hon. Member for Exeter (Sir J. Hannam) of 5 March 1991, Official Report, columns, 693–94, concerning the impact of using the functional test for disability working allowance for initial claims where no qualifying benefit is in payment. [26365]

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  The written answer to which the hon. Member refers was given before the introduction of disability working allowance and, as stated, the estimates were tentative.

  The estimates were based on data from the 1985 Office of Population Censuses and Suveys disability survey, which contains detailed information about individuals' disability and other characteristics. Using these data, it is possible to construct a scale of the severity of individuals' disability. The estimates assume that, in order to qualify for DWA, disabled people had to be above a certain threshold on this disability scale.

  The estimates took account of two groups of potential DWA recipients: those currently in work who score above the threshold on the OPCS scale and are not in receipt of a qualifying benefit; and disabled people not currently in work or in receipt of a qualifying benefit who might be

  Exempt category

  In receipt of incapacity benefit and previously in receipt of invalidity benefit prior to 13 April 1995

  New incapacity benefit claimants since 13 April 1995

  In receipt of severe disablement allowance

  In receipt of incapacity benefit With income support1

  In receipt of servere disablement allowance and income support

  Credit only2

  Receipt of higher rate care component of disability living allowance

  14,380

  1,580

  1,140

  4,880

  600

  Nil

  Severe condition3

  71,040

  15,640

  8,920

  19,300

  5,320

  Nil

  Terminally ill

  20

  100

  Nil

  80

  Nil

  140

  478
  induced to go back to work. The estimates provided in 1991 also assumed, as did other estimates at the time, that the number induced to go back to work would be substantial in relation to those already in work.

  It is not possible to produce revised estimates. The 1985 OPCS disability survey is still the most recent comprehensive survey of disabled peoples' characteristics, but the information about individuals' employment situation, earnings and benefit receipt is out of date and cannot now be used to produce reliable estimates of people who might qualify through a functional test but are not currently in receipt of a qualifying benefit. Any estimate of the size of a behavioural effect is speculative, and depends heavily on the state of the labour market and individuals' personal and other circumstances.

  Disabled People (Incapacity for Work)
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people who(a) were previously claiming invalidity benefit, (b) have claimed incapacity benefit since April 1995, (c) receive severe disablement allowance, (d) receive the income support disability premium on incapacity grounds and (e) receive incapacity credits only, have been treated as incapable of work since April 1995 by virtue of (i) receipt of the highest rate of the disability living allowance care component, (ii) being aged over 58 years on 13 April 1995 and received an incapacity benefit between 1 December 1993 and 12 April 1995, (iii) suffering from a progressive disease, (iv) being registered blind, (v) tetraplegia, (vi) persistent vegetative state, (vii) dementia, (viii) paraplegia (ix) a severe learning disability, (x) a severe and progressive muscle-wasting disease, (xi) an active and progressive form of inflammatory polyarthritis, (xii) a progressive impairment of cardio-respiratory function, (xiii) dense paralysis of upper limb, trunk and lower limb on one side of the body, (xiv) multiple effects of impairment of function of brain or nervous system, (xv) a severe and progressive immune deficiency state and (xvi) a severe mental illness. [26726]

  Mr. Burt
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is in the table.

  We estimate that 738,000 people are not subject to the all-work test because they were aged 58 or over on 13 April 1995 and have been continuously in receipt of invalidity benefit since 1 December 1993.
  479

  Exempt category

  In receipt of incapacity benefit and previously in receipt of invalidity benefit prior to 13 April 1995

  New incapacity benefit claimants since 13 April 1995

  In receipt of severe disablement allowance

  In receipt of incapacity benefit with income support1

  In receipt of Servere disablement allowance and income support

  Credit only2

  Terminally ill and in receipt of disability living allowance higher rate care component or severe condition

  420

  420

  Nil

  200

  Nil

  Nil

  In receipt of severe disablement allowance prior to 13 April 1995

  n/a

  n/a

  314,560

  n/a

  217,340

  n/a

  Total

  85,860

  17,740

  324,620

  24,460

  223,260

  140

  Notes:

  1 No data are held on the number of exempt claimants who are in receipt of the disability premium in income support.

  2 Credits-only cases are not in receipt of either incapacity benefit or severe disablement allowance but may be in receipt of other benefits.

  3No data are available on the nature of the severe condition.

  n/a = not applicable.

  Source:

  5 per cent. scan of the incapacity benefit computer system; all data up to 30 November 1995. Excludes a small number of cases not on the system.

  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people have been found incapable of work since April 1995 who(a) had previously claimed incapacity benefit since April 1995, (b) were receiving incapacity benefit and previously received invalidity benefit before April 1995; (c) previously claimed income support with a disability premium, (d) previously claimed severe disablement allowance and (e) received incapacity national insurance credits only. [26728]

  Mr. Burt
  The available information is in the table.

  Numbers found incapable of work

  New incapacity benefit claimants since 13 April 1995

  24,340

  In receipt of incapacity benefit and previously in receipt of invalidity benefit prior to 13 April 1995

  113,500

  In receipt of incapacity benefit with income support1

  37,940

  In receipt of severe disablement allowance

  7,480

  Credits only2

  44,380

  Notes:

  1 No information is available on the number found incapable of work who were in receipt of the disability premium in income support.

  2Credits only cases are not in receipt of incapacity benefit or severe disablement allowance but may be receiving other benefits.

  Source:

  5 per cent. scan of the incapacity benefit computer system; all data are up to 30 November 1995. Excludes a small number of cases not on the system.

  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people have been(a) found incapable of work since April 1995 and (b) disallowed benefit for failure to return the questionnaire or attend a medical examination; and how many people in both categories
  480
  have (i) signed on as unemployed, (ii) received unemployment benefit, (iii) received income support and (iv) received both. [26727]

  Mr. Burt
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is in the table.

  Number

  Found capable of work following failure to return the questionnaire

  7,710

  Found capable of work following failure to attend a medical examination

  2,416

  Found incapable of work

  561,502

  Source:

  100 per cent. count of cases on the incapacity benefit computer system. Excludes cases where claim related to national insurance credits only and a small number of cases not on the system. Data as at 31 March 1996.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his policy on extending exemption from the restrictions to housing benefit from October to all young people who have been looked after by local authorities and to whom local authorities have a duty to provide a service up to the age of at least 21 years, pursuant to section 24 of the Children Act 1989; and if he will make a statement. [27047]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  It would be unreasonable to expect the taxpayer to subsidise rents which are above those for the sort of accommodation which single young people expect to occupy where they meet rent from their own resources merely because a social service department owes duties under the Children Act. The arrangement whereby people aged under 22, who were previously subject to a care order, will be exempt from some housing benefit changes to be introduced in October, is a concession which recognises the particular vulnerability of young people for whom a court considers it necessary
  481
  for a social service department to assume parental responsibility. Other young people will not be affected by the new arrangements if they live in exempt accommodation, including that provided by a housing association, voluntary body or registered charity where care, support or supervision is provided to the tenant by, or on behalf of, the landlord.

  Mr. Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what advice he will give on obtaining housing for young people in housing need in Gloucestershire after the introduction of restrictions to housing benefit in October 1996; and if he will make a statement. [27043]

  Mr. Evans
  Housing benefit will remain available to help young single people in Gloucestershire and elsewhere meet the general level of rents for the sort of accommodation which they tend to occupy if they meet rent from their own resources. It would be unreasonable to expect the taxpayer to subsidise rents above this level. Young people will have access to a pre-tenancy determination to indicate the likely level of rent which would be used to assess benefit.

  Mr. Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many young people aged at least 15 years, who were looked after by Gloucestershire's social services department in March 1996 but who were not subject to a care order, pursuant to section 31(1)(a) of the Children Act 1989, will not be exempt from the housing benefit restrictions for young people from October 1996, if they remain in the care system through and beyond their 16th birthdays; and if he will make a statement. [27045]

  Mr. Evans
  The information requested is not yet available.

  Mr. Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of the number of young people in Gloucestershire who will be in housing need in the county in the year following the introduction of restrictions to housing benefit in October 1996; and if he will make a statement. [27044]

  Mr. Evans
  The October 1996 housing benefit rules for single young people should not lead to housing need. Housing benefit will remain payable after that date based on rent levels for the sort of dwellings which young single people tend to occupy if they meet rent from their own resources. Local authorities will have discretion, and some additional funding, to pay higher levels of benefit to prevent exceptional hardship in individual cases.

  Mr. Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his policy on exemption from the restrictions to housing benefit from October 1996 for those young people in contact with Barnados leaving care project in Gloucestershire, while looked after by Gloucestershire's social services department(a) who are subject to care orders under section 31(1) (a) of the Children Act 1989, and towards whom the local authority maintains duties until at least their 21st birthday, pursuant to section 24 of the said Act and (b) who are not subject to such care orders, but towards whom the local authority maintains duties until at least their 21st birthday; and if he will make a statement. [27046]

  Mr. Evans
  Young people who are "looked after" by social services departments cannot receive housing benefit if the terms by which they are provided with 482
  accommodation under the Children Act means that they cannot be liable to pay for it. Guidance covering this area will be issued shortly.

  Children who cease to be "looked after" may be entitled to housing benefit if they become liable to pay for their dwelling. It would be unreasonable to expect the taxpayer to subsidise rents for single young people which are above the level for the sort of accommodation which they expect to occupy where they meet rent from their own resources simply because they were previously looked after, or assisted by, a social services department. The concession whereby people aged under 22 who were previously subject to a care order will be exempt from some housing benefit changes to be introduced in October recognises the particular vulnerability of young people for whom a court considers it necessary for a social services department to assume parental responsibility. Other young people will not be affected by the new arrangements if they live in exempt accommodation, including that provided by a housing association, voluntary body or registered charity where care, support or supervision is provided to the tenant by, or on behalf of, the landlord.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Chickens and Pigs
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what monitoring of his Department's Veterinary Laboratories Agency has carried out into the hormone residues in(a) pigs and (b) chickens with particular reference to strains of disease similar to bovine spongiform encephalopathy; what have been the results to date; and if he will make a statement; [24223]

  (2) what monitoring his Department's Veterinary Laboratories Agency has carried out into the hormone residues in (a) chickens and (b) pigs which are used in the manufacture of pet foods with particular reference to strains of disease similar to bovine spongiform encephalopathy; what have been the results to date; and if he will make a statement; [24224]

  Mrs. Browning
  Certain residue testing has been carried out in pigs and chickens; no samples taken showed any residues above the action level. The testing for hormone residues has no relationship with BSE.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Ms Janet Anderson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the revenue spending estimated by his Department in connection with the private finance initiative for(a) 1995–96, (b) 1996–97 and (c) 1997–98. [26622]

  Mr. Boswell
  The revenue spending estimated in connection with the private finance initiative is estimated at up to the following amounts:

  1995–96: nil

  1996–97: £1 million

  1997–98: £5 million.

  Livestock Group Head
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what measures his Department took in respect of the head of his Department's livestock group to ensure there was not a conflict of interest when he was appointed as a non-executive director of Lucas Ingredients; if he is still associated with that company; and if he will make a statement. [26690]

  Mr. Boswell
  The position of staff holding non-executive directorships or similar appointments is safeguarded by the general requirement binding on all civil servants that they must not take part in activities which might conflict with the interests of their Department, or impair their usefulness as public servants, or be inconsistent with their position as such.

  Civil servants acting as directors remain subject to the Official Secrets Acts and the need to preserve the confidentiality of departmental business and information received in confidence from others. In relation to any particular appointment, individuals and their line managers must consider whether there is a present or potential conflict of interest and, if appropriate, an appointment may not be proceeded with, or restrictions may be placed on the kinds of discussion that the individual can take part in.

  Where necessary, departmental checks would also be made to ensure that the prospective director is not in possession of commercially sensitive information relating to the company's competitors which might give rise to criticism. The company concerned has a right to expect the director to preserve the confidentiality of its corporate affairs.

  The appointment of the head of the livestock group was made with due regard to these principles. The appointment has now lapsed and the person concerned no longer has any association with the company.

  Chernobyl
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what has been the total cost to the United Kingdom of the Chernobyl accident on 26 April 1986. [27096]

  Mrs. Browning
  The main economic effect to the United Kingdom of the Chernobyl accident has been on the UK sheep industry. The introduction of sheep controls on certain areas of upland grazing land contaminated by radioactive fallout from Chernobyl has been mitigated by the introduction of the sheep compensation scheme. This was introduced in July 1986 to compensate farmers whose enterprises had been disrupted as a consequence of the sheep controls. To date, more than £12 million has been paid to farmers who were affected. The compensation has been primarily to recompense farmers for the inconvenience of controls; payments for market losses have been comparatively small.

  Agri-environment Schemes (Birds)
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what plans he has to initiate and fund a whole-farm project for arable farmers under the 484
  countryside stewardship scheme for the benefit of skylarks; [27158]

  (2) what further plans he has to introduce measures for arable extensification as required under the EU agri-environment regulation EEC 2078/92. [27161]

  Mr. Boswell
  EC agri-environment regulation 2078/92 requires member states to introduce a number of different categories of schemes, including one"to change to more extensive forms of crop, including forage, production, or to maintain extensive production methods introduced in the past, or to convert arable land into extensive grassland"

  This is implemented in England through the environmentally sensitive areas, countryside stewardship and some options of the habitat scheme.

  We have recently reviewed our agri-environment schemes and, in particular, the future of countryside stewardship following extensive and detailed public consultations. We relaunched the countryside stewardship scheme this month and our objectives and decisions on priorities for the scheme have been widely welcomed. We have no plans at present to alter our priorities for stewardship or to introduce any new agri-environment schemes.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what plans he has to stem the decline of birds of the open field; [27159]

  (2) what plans he has to replace the environmental benefits of set-aside by a new arable extensification scheme in the event that the percentage of land currently in set-aside is reduced. [27160]

  Mr. Boswell
  Following a suggestion made at the national agri-environment forum on 25 March, I agreed that officials should set up a working group to look at ways of enhancing the conservation value of cropped arable land, focusing particularly on promoting environmental benefits in the centre of fields for birds and other wildlife. This group will include representatives of key farming and conservation organisations and I expect it to commence work in the near future.

  In addition, the Ministry sponsored the recent farmland bird management guidelines prepared by the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, which I sent to all farmers in England with more than 100 hectares of arable land. These set out a number of practical ways in which farmers can encourage birds on their farms.

  Specified Bovine Offals
  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the outcome of the State Veterinary Service's surveillance of the handling of specified bovine offals in January, February and March 1996; and if he will make a statement. [27884]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The controls on specified bovine offals—SBO—now termed specified bovine material—SBM—are central to the protection of public health from any risk from BSE. They require the removal of all those
  485
  tissues known potentially to harbour BSE infectivity from all cattle at slaughter. Compliance with these controls is of paramount importance, as I have made clear on a number of occasions in the House and directly to slaughterhouse operators.

  Number of visits

  January 1996 Number of unsatisfactory visits

  Percentage unsatisfactory

  Number of visits

  February 1996 Number of unsatisfactory visits

  Percentage unsatisfactory

  Number of visits

  March 1996 Number of unsatisfactory visits

  Percentage unsatisfactory

  Slaughterhouses

  321

  16

  5.0

  274

  17

  6.2

  264

  10

  3.8

  Hunt kennels and knackeries

  242

  15

  6.2

  187

  7

  3.7

  219

  14

  6.4

  Rendering plants1

  6

  1

  16.7

  6

  1

  16.7

  5

  1

  16.7

  Incinerators1

  28

  0

  0

  15

  2

  13.3

  25

  1

  4.0

  1 Rendering plants and incinerators have to be specifically approved to handle SBOs; only a small number of such plants are so approved.

  These results show that there has been a significant and sustained improvement in the handling of SBM since the most recent intensive surveillance programme began in September 1995. It is disappointing, however, that deficiencies are still being found in a small number of slaughterhouses and hunt kennels and knackeries. I expect all plants to continue to work hard to ensure they fully comply with the controls.

  It is important to note that many of the failings in SBM handling found were comparatively mild—for example, problems with staining SBM or with record keeping, which would not present a direct risk to public or animal health. There were, however, four further instances of the most serious failing, three in which small pieces of spinal cord were left attached to carcases after dressing and one in which the entire spinal cord was left attached, from mid-January to mid-March. There have been no such instances since the middle of March. A total of 25 instances in which spinal cord was left attached to carcases have now been detected since the summer of 1995. In this same period, over 2 million cattle were slaughtered.

  The Meat Hygiene Service has the responsibility of enforcing the SBM controls in slaughterhouses. It does this most rigorously and we have made available extra resources to ensure that the agency can discharge its responsibilities effectively. The agency's staff are fully aware that they may face disciplinary action as a result of their failure fully to enforce the controls. Since the summer, 22 MHS officials have been subject to full disciplinary investigation as a result of their failure to ensure full compliance with the SBM controls. One officer has been dismissed, 12 have received formal disciplinary warnings, and no formal action has been taken against the other nine, although they have been issued with a written caution. In addition, two inspectors are currently under investigation. Before any of these staff have been allowed to begin their work again they have undergone retraining. In one of these cases, the MHS has referred the plant to MAFF's legal services for investigation.

  Slaughterhouses face prosecution for significant breaches of the SBM controls, when sufficient evidence is available. At present, one such case is before the courts and several more are under investigation with a view to prosecution.
  486
  The State Veterinary Service carried out regular unannounced visits to all plants handling SBM to monitor their compliance with the controls. The results of the surveillance visits in January, February and March 1996 are as follows:

  The SVS will continue its regular unannounced visits to all plants handling SBM. The MHS will continue to enforce rules most vigorously, and press for prosecutions where there is sufficient evidence to support a case.

  Nuclear Contamination (Soviet Submarine)
  Mr. Foulkes
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what assessment he has made of the effect on the food chain of contamination from the nuclear reactors and weapons on board the Soviet November class submarine which sank in the western approaches to the United Kingdom on 12 April 1970; and if he will make a statement; [26707]

  (2) what action he has taken on the report by the International Atomic Energy Authority of July 1991, "Inventory of Radioactive Material into the Marine Environment", with particular respect to the sinking of a Soviet November class nuclear submarine on 12 April 1970; for what reasons the report has not been published; and if he will make a statement. [26706]

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 25 April 1996]: Publication of this report is a matter for the IAEA. A draft of the report was circulated to contracting parties to the convention on the prevention of marine pollution by dumping of wastes and other matter—the "London convention, 1972"—including the United Kingdom, in November 1991. Copies of this version have been placed in the Library.

  The reported submarine incident on 12 April 1970 is noted in the draft report. The draft does not identify a specific location but it is given elsewhere as approximately 1,000 km south-west of Land's End, in 4,500 m of water. There is no suggestion the incident took place in the western approaches. Contemporary and subsequent results from MAFF's extensive programme of monitoring for radioactivity in fish, shellfish, sea water and sediments around the British Isles have shown no indication of contamination from this or any other confirmed or reported accidental loss. Reports of the MAFF monitoring programme are also available in the Library.

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what research his Department has
  487
  undertaken to assess the susceptibility of different cattle breeds to BSE (a) by epidemiology and (b) by experiment. [23368]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 28 March 1996]: Epidemiological studies of the epidemic suggest that all breeds of cattle are susceptible to BSE, and that the numbers of cases confirmed by breed reflect the population of that breed in the country, and the extent to which compound feed containing meat and bone meal has been consumed. Experimental exposures of cattle to BSE have not been intended to determine breed susceptibility, but have used calves of several breeds, including cross-bred animals. Breeds involved include Friesian/Holstein and crosses, Jersey and Jersey cross, Limousin and Limousin cross, Simmental cross, Belgian blue and cross, Charolais, Hereford cross. All appear equally susceptible.

  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if the prion-related protein genes in different cattle have been sequenced in the research into BSE evaluated by his Department. [23357]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 28 March 1996]: Extensive PrP gene sequencing of cattle of several breeds in Britain has revealed no polymorphisms that are associated with susceptibility to BSE. Recognised polymorphisms are five or six copies of an octapeptide repeat sequence, with PrP alleles encoding proteins of 256 and 264 amino acids respectively; a cytosine/thymine switch at base 576 which does not change the amino acid encoded; an adenine/guanine switch at base 234, also without an amino acid change.

  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what evidence he has assessed in respect of(a) maternal and (b) lateral transmission of BSE. [23200]

  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the most recent scientific advice evaluated by his Department concerning the likelihood of vertical transmission in cattle of the agent causing bovine spongiform encephalopathy; and if he will make a statement. [24118]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answers 28 March and 2 April 1996]: I refer the hon. Members to the answer that I gave on 25 April 1996, Official Report column 274.

  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many transgressions of BSE regulations there have been(a) in Scotland, (b) in the rest of the United Kingdom and (c) in each of the regions of (a) and (b). [23365]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 28 March 1996]: Enforcement of the Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy Order 1991, as amended, is the responsibility of local authorities. Until 1 April 1995, local authorities were also responsible for enforcement of the controls on specified bovine offals in slaughterhouses and head-boning plants. Information on enforcement before that date is not therefore held centrally. It is not possible, without
  488
  disproportionate costs, to collect and collate this information from local authorities.

  Since 1 April 1995 the Meat Hygiene Service has been responsible for enforcement of the controls on specified bovine materials. To date, there is one case before the court. A number of other cases are under investigation.

  The State Veterinary Service regularly monitors the enforcement of the controls in slaughterhouses and elsewhere on specified bovine offals, which are required to be separated and disposed of by incineration or burial. The results of recent surveillance of slaughterhouses and head-boning plants were announced in the House on 19 July and updated on 22 November, 18 January and 30 April.

  Mr. David Porter
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to provide for the dumping of BSE-infected carcases in the sea; what scientific studies he has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated on the impact on the marine food chain; and if he will make a statement; [26855]

  Mr. Baldry
  [holding answer 29 April 1996]: In his statement of 16 April, Official Report, columns 513–29, my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food announced that the waste material, offals and carcase meat resulting from the over 30 months bovine cull scheme will be treated primarily by rendering with the resultant material to be disposed of by the best practicable environmental option. Dumping at sea of BSE-infected carcase or any other bovine material is not an option under consideration.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Serco Ltd.
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what contracts his Department, his agencies and the Cabinet Office have with Serco Ltd.; what is the current cost; when each contract ends; what are the penalties involved should he seek early termination of the contract; and if he will make a statement. [26640]

  Mr. Willetts
  My Department has two contracts with Serco Ltd., one for the provision of office services and another for the provision of a technical helpline. The Department also has an enabling contract for the provision of security-related maintenance of royal property with Serco Services (Scotland) Ltd. The annual cost of the contracts is some £800,000. The expiry dates for all these contracts is 31 March 1997, with the Department having the option to extend them. There are no penalties involved should the Department seek early termination.

  Deregulation
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what was the outcome of the meeting on 10 April with the deregulation unit concerning the Merchant Shipping and Fishing Vessels (Medical Stores) Regulations 1995; and if he will make a statement. [27087]
  489
  Mr. Freeman
  As a result of this meeting, the Parliamentary Secretary has written to Viscount Goschen reporting the concerns that have been expressed. With the Department of Transport, we propose to review the provisions of the regulations, particularly where they impact on small business, and the scope for improvements. I hope to make a further statement shortly.

  Archway Tower
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is the annual cost to his Department of the lease of Archway tower; who is the head lessee; who is the owner of the freehold; and what future use he plans for the building. [27135]

  Mr. Freeman
  As these are purely operational matters, I have asked the chief executive of Property Advisers to the Civil Estate to write directly to the hon. Member.

  Letter from N. E. Borrett to Mr. Jeremy Corbyn, dated 29 April 1996:
  The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has asked me to reply to your Question about Archway Tower.
  PACE has responsibility for Archway Tower which is leased to the Secretary of State for the Environment and needs extensive modernisation and refurbishment.
  It was formerly occupied by the Benefits Agency as a public caller office and for other purposes but was operationally unsuitable and these functions transferred to another property in March 1995. The annual rent payable is £913,400.
  Letting Agents are appointed to dispose of the lease by whatever means are possible but the building is considerably over-rented and there is little serious interest. Efforts are continuing to find a Government Department to occupy. Constructed in the 1970's, the building now requires complete refurbishment prior to re-occupation but in view of the depressed rental levels in the area, the capital expenditure is unlikely to be justified in the absence of a firm demand.
  The freehold is owned by London Underground Limited and the head lessees are K P & B P Shah and A M Patel.

WALES

  Coal and Steel Workers
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many persons are employed in(a) the steel industry and (b) the coal industry in Wales; and if he will make a statement. [26828]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  About 15,700 people are currently employed in steel manufacturing operations in Wales.

  At 31 December 1995, approximately 2,500 people were employed in the coal industry in Wales.

  I recognise the importance of both industries to the Welsh economy. In British Steel, we have one of the most efficient steel producers in the world and, in the short time since privatisation, the new coal companies have made great strides in developing their businesses.

  Raytheon Corporate Jets
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has held concerning job prospects at Raytheon Corporate Jets, Broughton, Flintshire; and if he will make a statement. [26833]
  490
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  My right hon. Friend visited Raytheon Corporate Jets last September. All possible assistance has been given to the company to support the development at its facility in Broughton. The first instalment of regional selective assistance has already been paid.

  Small and Medium-sized Businesses
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his estimate of the number of employees employed in work in small and medium-sized businesses in Wales; and if he will make a statement. [26824]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Different definitions of small and medium-sized businesses are used in various contexts. A breakdown of business units in Wales—roughly corresponding to workplaces—by employment size bands is available from the 1993 census of employment. The data are on the NOMIS database which can be accessed by the staff of the Library of the House.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with representatives of small and medium-sized businesses; and if he will make a statement. [26822]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  My right hon. Friend has, in recent months, met the Institute of Directors (Wales), the Wales Confederation of British Industry and the Cardiff chamber of commerce. Other meetings are planned. In addition, the Welsh Office has supported the recent series of "Your Business Matters" conferences attended by small firms and their representative bodies.

  Road Congestion
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what measures he proposes to eliminate road congestion in north-east Wales; and if he will make a statement. [26830]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Plans for future improvements to the trunk road network in north-east Wales and the level of local authority expenditure on major schemes supported by transport grant are included in chapter 6 of the Welsh Office's departmental report, Cm 3215, published on 25 March. Improvements to the local road network are the responsibility of the new unitary authorities.

  Steel Industry
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement concerning prospects for the steel industry in Wales in respect of hot-rolled coil and coated products. [26858]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Prospects for the steel industry in Wales are good. Companies have made significant investments to improve quality and are seeing the benefits through increased orders. The Government are working closely with the industry to improve competitiveness further.

  Small Businesses (Rural Areas)
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to stimulate small businesses in rural areas; and if he will make a statement. [26826]
  491
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The White Paper "A Working Countryside for Wales" published in March by my right hon. Friend outlines a comprehensive programme of measures to assist small businesses in rural areas. Copies of the White Paper are available in the Library of the House.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Ms Janet Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the revenue spending estimated by his Department in connection with the private finance initiative for(a) 1995–96, (b) 1996–97 and (c) 1997–98. [26635]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  There are no revenue costs for the Welsh Office resulting from the one project it has approved so far under the private finance initiative.

  British Aerospace
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has held concerning job prospects at British Aerospace, Broughton, Flintshire; and if he will make a statement. [26834]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  My right hon. Friend visited British Aerospace last September and the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, North-East (Mr. Richards), visited the company in March this year. During the visits the company outlined its plans for the future.

  Engineering Jobs
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his estimate of the number of jobs in Wales provided by engineering; and if he will make a statement. [26825]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The latest available figures are for 1993, when some 85,400 employees were employed in engineering-related industries—SIC(92) divisions 28 to 35—in Wales, according to the census of employment. This represented an increase of 0.5 per cent. on the 1991 figure.

  Since 1993, the Welsh Office has introduced designated funding for training and enterprise councils to support modern apprenticeships in manufacturing. In 1994–95, some 500 people started such apprenticeships. In 1995–96 and 1996–97, starts are expected to be 1,200 and more than 1,600, respectively.

  Serco Ltd.
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what contracts his Department and his agencies have with Serco Ltd.; what is the current cost; when each contract ends; what are the penalties involved should he seek early termination of the contract; and if he will make a statement. [26689]

  Mr. Hague
  The only current contract between Serco Ltd. and my Department—including the Cadw agency—relates to the M4, south Wales, communications emergency telephone systems. It was awarded in February 1995 at a cost of £384,368, and the expected completion date is August 1996. I am able to seek early termination of the contract only in the event of default by Serco Ltd.,492
  in which case I would arrange for the outstanding work to be completed by another contractor following normal tendering procedures, and seek recovery from Serco Ltd. of any excess cost incurred as a result.

  Research and Development
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much cash has been earmarked for research and development matters in Welsh industry for each of the years 1990 to 1995; and if he will make a statement. [26827]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The following sums were allocated for small firms merit award for research and technology, support for products under research and regional enterprise grant—innovation—research and development support schemes in Wales:

  1990–91:£2.53 million.

  1991–92:£2.935 million

  1992–93:£2.422 million

  1993–94:£3,186 million

  1994–95:£3.751 million.

  Welsh industry has also received support from Department of Trade and Industry and European Union research and development schemes.

  Travelling People
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the number and location of sites for travelling people in each county in Wales; and if he will make a statement. [26986]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The most recent survey of gipsy sites in Wales relates to 17 January 1996. The information is on a county and district basis. I have arranged for a copy to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Road Accidents
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish the latest road accident figures for Wales by county; and if he will make a statement. [26866]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The information requested will be published in "Road Accidents: Wales No. 16 1995" on Wednesday 1 May 1996. A copy of the publication will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many children were killed in road traffic accidents in each of the counties in Wales in the most recent year for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement. [26868]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The information requested is shown in the following table. The figures relate to children killed in accidents recorded by the police.

  Children killed in road accidents during 1995

  Number

  Clwyd

  2

  Dyfed

  1

  Gwent

  3

  Gwynedd

  2

  Mid Glamorgan

  3

  493

  Children killed in road accidents during 1995

  Number

  Powys

  1

  South Glamorgan

  —

  West Glamorgan

  1

  Wales

  13

  River Dee Crossing
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he expects the River Dee crossing and associated works to be completed; what is the estimated cost; and if he will make a statement. [26870]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  This scheme is the responsibility of Flintshire county council. It expects completion in July 1997 at an estimated total cost of some £63 million.

  Road Schemes (Air Quality Reports)
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to improve the reports on air quality when public inquiries are held on major road schemes; and if he will make a statement. [26862]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien)Official Report, column 1, on 22 April by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport.

  Road Links
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to improve road communications from Kelsterton, Deeside, to Point of Ayr. [26872]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  This is the responsibility of Flintshire county council.

  Hawarden Airport
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the future of Hawarden airport. [26874]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The future development of Hawarden airport is a matter for British Aerospace, its owners.

  Chernobyl
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the cost to the Welsh economy of the radioactive fallout from the Chernobyl accident of 26 April 1986. [26916]

  M4 Wye Bridge Gwent Total flow combined directions

  Averaged from Sunday 1 January 1995 to Sunday 31 December 1995

  Time

  Monday

  Tuesday

  Wednesday

  Thursday

  Friday

  Saturday

  Sunday

  5 day average

  7 day average

  00:00–01:00

  428

  340

  338

  374

  390

  488

  438

  374

  400

  01:00–02:00

  262

  247

  246

  260

  280

  341

  287

  259

  273

  02:00–03:00

  207

  230

  226

  241

  265

  278

  188

  234

  232

  494
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Estimates of the overall cost to the Welsh economy resulting from the Chernobyl accident are not currently available. However, the direct cost to farmers, measured in terms of disruption to their enterprises and for which compensation has been paid since 1986, is estimated to be just over £8 million.

  Disabled People
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to provide guidance to the franchising director in respect of train operating companies in Wales to ensure guaranteed access to services for those with disability. [26967]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given on 23 April by my hon. Friend the Minister for Railways and Roads to the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey),Official Report, columns 75–76.

  A550
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he expects the grade interchange A550 road improvement and associated works to be completed; what is his estimate of the total costs; and if he will make a statement. [26869]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The contract completion date of the A550 Deeside park interchange improvement is November this year. The contract sum is £10.247 million.

  Bus Companies
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his estimate of the number of bus companies currently operative in Wales; and if he will make a statement. [26873]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  There is uncertainty about the number of bus companies operating in Wales because of the rapid rate at which smaller operators enter and leave the industry. It is estimated that there are around 600 companies currently operating in Wales.

  Ambulance Service
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proposals he has received in relation to the setting up of an all-Wales ambulance service. [27505]

  Mr. Hague
  None.

  Severn and Queensferry Bridges
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many vehicles per hour cross the current Severn bridge and the Queensferry A550 bridge; and if he will make a statement. [26876]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The following tables show the average hourly flows calculated from all the available data from 1995.
  495

  M4 Wye Bridge Gwent Total flow combined directions

  Averaged from Sunday 1 January 1995 to Sunday 31 December 1995

  Time

  Monday

  Tuesday

  Wednesday

  Thursday

  Friday

  Saturday

  Sunday

  5 day average

  7 day average

  03:00-04:00

  254

  277

  277

  277

  298

  295

  190

  277

  266

  04:00-05:00

  455

  424

  432

  427

  453

  374

  242

  438

  401

  05:00-06:00

  909

  753

  740

  742

  752

  488

  280

  779

  666

  06:00-07:00

  1,929

  1,669

  1,646

  1,656

  1,578

  898

  479

  1,695

  1,407

  07:00-08.00

  4,093

  3,947

  3,882

  3,880

  3,623

  1,577

  819

  3,885

  3,115

  08:00-09:00

  4,402

  4,583

  4,588

  4,588

  4,211

  2,156

  1,183

  4,474

  3,671

  09:00-10:00

  3,630

  3,871

  3,924

  3,922

  3,648

  2,887

  1,907

  3,799

  3,398

  10:00-11:00

  3,459

  3,399

  3,433

  3,459

  3,535

  3,625

  2,715

  3,457

  3,373

  11:00-12:00

  3,421

  3,178

  3,255

  3,314

  3,653

  3,880

  3,217

  3,364

  3,415

  12:00-13:00

  3,270

  3,105

  3,121

  3,236

  3,731

  3.519

  2,964

  3,292

  3,277

  13:00-14:00

  3,158

  3,078

  3,107

  3,250

  3,920

  3,138

  2,707

  3,303

  3,192

  14:00-15:00

  3,180

  3,176

  3,234

  3,414

  4,302

  2,844

  2,959

  3,462

  3,300

  15:00-16:00

  3,398

  3,524

  3,594

  3,743

  4,649

  2,693

  3,431

  3,781

  3,576

  16:00-17:00

  3,812

  4,014

  4,126

  4,237

  4,961

  2,671

  3,828

  4,230

  3,949

  17:00-18:00

  4,185

  4,372

  4,517

  4,552

  4,963

  2,722

  3,967

  4,517

  4,183

  18:00-19:00

  3,523

  3,659

  3,782

  3,918

  4,467

  2,526

  3,692

  3,870

  3,651

  19:00-20:00

  2.119

  2,086

  2,232

  2,380

  3,328

  1,820

  3,147

  2,428

  2,443

  20:00-21:00

  1,431

  1,367

  1,458

  1,605

  2,437

  1,296

  2,465

  1,660

  1,721

  21:00-22:00

  1,043

  992

  1,091

  1,262

  1,730

  935

  1,736

  1,224

  1,254

  22:00-23:00

  764

  772

  827

  945

  1,193

  733

  1,085

  901

  902

  23:00-24:00

  534

  518

  578

  623

  771

  588

  684

  605

  613

  12, 16, 18 and 24 hour totals

  07:00-19:00

  43,531

  43,906

  44,563

  45,513

  49,663

  34,238

  33,389

  45,435

  42,114

  06:00-22:00

  50,053

  50,020

  50,990

  52,416

  58,736

  39,187

  41,216

  52,443

  48,944

  06:00-24:00

  51,351

  51,310

  52,395

  53,984

  60,700

  40,508

  42,985

  53,948

  50,461

  00:00-24:00

  53,581

  54,654

  54,654

  56,305

  63,138

  42,772

  44,610

  56,309

  52,703

  am Peak

  08:00

  08:00

  08:00

  08:00

  08:00

  11:00

  11:00

  08:00

  08:00

  Peak volume

  4,402

  4,583

  4,588

  4,588

  4,211

  3,880

  3,217

  4,474

  3,671

  pm Peak

  17:00

  17:00

  17:00

  17:00

  17:00

  12:00

  17:00

  17:00

  17:00

  Peak volume

  4,185

  4,372

  4,517

  4,552

  4,963

  3,519

  3,967

  4,517

  4,183

  A494 Queensferry Clwyd Total flow combined directions

  Averaged from Sunday 1 January 1995 to Sunday 31 December 1995

  Time

  Monday

  Tuesday

  Wednesday

  Thursday

  Friday

  Saturday

  Sunday

  5 day average

  7 day average

  00:00-01:00

  385

  334

  378

  406

  460

  654

  706

  393

  474

  01:00-02:00

  199

  200

  196

  215

  247

  374

  444

  212

  267

  02:00-03:00

  140

  147

  149

  161

  204

  318

  356

  160

  210

  03:00-04:00

  197

  232

  219

  226

  249

  275

  251

  224

  235

  04:00-05:00

  251

  263

  265

  274

  278

  246

  169

  267

  249

  05:00-06:00

  893

  915

  896

  890

  908

  632

  364

  900

  785

  06:00-07:00

  1,966

  1,950

  1,928

  1,925

  1,897

  1,134

  749

  1,933

  1,649

  07:00-08.00

  4,880

  5,083

  5,070

  5,016

  4,807

  1,867

  1,043

  4,971

  3,966

  08:00-09:00

  5,122

  5,446

  5,513

  5,372

  5,233

  2,374

  1,185

  5,338

  4,320

  09:00-10:00

  3,453

  3,523

  3,559

  3,549

  3,526

  3,075

  2,021

  3,522

  3,243

  10:00-11:00

  3,439

  3,290

  3,393

  3,331

  3,527

  3,975

  3,110

  3,404

  3,443

  11:00-12:00

  3,621

  3,317

  3,375

  3,332

  3,790

  4,491

  3,845

  3,487

  3,681

  12:00-13:00

  3,589

  3,307

  3,363

  3,302

  4,271

  4,498

  3,992

  3,567

  3,760

  13:00-14:00

  3,877

  3,667

  3,718

  3,656

  4,229

  4,391

  3,932

  3,830

  3,924

  14:00-15:00

  3,706

  3,565

  3,651

  3,602

  4,532

  4,075

  3,892

  3,811

  3,860

  15:00-16:00

  3,780

  3,705

  3,865

  3,815

  4,916

  3,672

  3,966

  4,016

  3,959

  16:00-17:00

  5,066

  5,195

  5,331

  5,286

  5,520

  3,680

  4,197

  5,280

  4,896

  17:00-18:00

  5,315

  5,513

  5,636

  5,528

  5,367

  3,691

  3,833

  5,472

  4,983

  18:00-19:00

  3,931

  4,151

  4,234

  4,156

  4,330

  3,224

  3,376

  4,160

  3,914

  19:00-20:00

  2,475

  2,537

  2,623

  2,741

  3,529

  2,443

  2,924

  2,781

  2,752

  20:00-21:00

  1,726

  1,780

  1,852

  2,033

  2,473

  1,772

  2,283

  1,973

  1,988

  21:00-22:00

  1,499

  1,549

  1,639

  1,720

  1,768

  1,355

  1,802

  1,635

  1,618

  22:00-23:00

  1,047

  1,135

  1,237

  1,169

  1,231

  977

  1,179

  1,163

  1,138

  23:00-24:00

  615

  720

  784

  775

  930

  884

  761

  765

  780

  12, 16, 18 and 24 hour totals

  07:00-19:00

  49,779

  49,762

  50,708

  49,945

  54,088

  43,013

  38,392

  50,857

  47,954

  06:00-22:00

  57,445

  57,578

  58,750

  58,364

  63,755

  49,717

  46,150

  59,179

  55,956

  06:00-24:00

  59,107

  59,433

  60,771

  60,308

  65,916

  51,278

  48,090

  61,107

  57,886

  00:00-24:00

  61,172

  61,524

  62,874

  62,480

  68,262

  54,077

  50,380

  63,262

  60,109

  496

  497

  A494 Queensferry Clwyd Total flow combined directions

  Averaged from Sunday 1 January 1995 to Sunday 31 December 1995

  Time

  Monday

  Tuesday

  Wednesday

  Thursday

  Friday

  Saturday

  Sunday

  5 day average

  7 day average

  am Peak

  08:00

  08:00

  08:00

  08:00

  08:00

  11:00

  11:00

  08:00

  08:00

  Peak volume

  5,122

  5,446

  5,513

  5,372

  5,233

  4,491

  3,845

  5,338

  4,320

  pm Peak

  17:00

  17:00

  17:00

  17:00

  16:00

  12:00

  16:00

  17:00

  17:00

  Peak volume

  5,315

  5,513

  5,636

  5,528

  5,520

  4,498

  4,197

  5,472

  4,983

  Regional Railways
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the levels of investment in regional railways as they affect the Wrexham-Birkenhead and Holyhead-Chester-Crewe lines; and if he will make a statement. [26863]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The level of investment in railway lines in north Wales is a matter for Railtrack. I intend to meet the company soon to discuss its investment plans for all lines in Wales.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the effect of privatisation on the regional railways that serve north Wales; and if he will make a statement. [26864]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The Government's proposals for franchising the operation of regional railways are designed to improve the quality of passenger rail services. North West Regional Railways will be franchised as soon as is practicable.

  Railways (Safety)
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement concerning safety on railways in Wales. [26871]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given on 22 April by my hon. Friend the Minister for Railways and Roads to the hon. Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. Heppell),Official Report, column 33.

  Speed Cameras
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the benefits of speed cameras; and if he will make a statement. [26865]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Results from an initial trial of fixed site speed cameras in Llanidloes confirm that they can be effective in controlling excessive speeds close to camera sites.

  However, speed cameras are likely to be justifiable only at sites with a history of accidents associated with excessive driving speeds.

  The Welsh Office is planning a further set of trials in conjunction with Welsh police authorities using portable or semi-portable camera equipment to determine the effectiveness and benefits of such systems.

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what recent consultations he has had with each of the farming unions in Wales concerning BSE. [26875]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  My right hon. Friend and I have met farmers' leaders to discuss this subject on a number of occasions, most recently my right hon. Friend met the Farmers Union of Wales, the National Farmers Union and the Country Landowners Association on 22 April.

  Home Energy Conservation Act 1995
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales which local authorities in Wales will be eligible during 1996–97 for grants under the Home Energy Conservation Act 1995 action scheme. [27244]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  No, the Home Energy Conservation Act does not make provision for grants.

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he plans to issue guidelines in respect of the Home Energy Conservation Act 1995 in Wales. [27243]

  Mr. Jones
  In Wales, guidance on implementation of the Home Energy Conservation Act will be issued this summer.

  M4 Relief Road
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received concerning the proposed M4 relief road; and if he will make a statement. [27420]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Various views have been received about proposals for the M4 Magor to Castleton relief road as a result of public consultation in 1993 and 1994. My right hon. Friend announced his preferred route for this scheme in July last year.

HEALTH

  Oral Contraceptives
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what meetings took place between his Department and the manufacturers of third generation oral contraceptives between July and the end of September 1995; and if concerns about the safety of their products were discussed at those meetings. [25589]

  Mr. Malone
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave him on 16 April at column 488.

  Mr. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which company his Department employed in October 1995 to print, collate and post the letter to general
  499
  practitioners informing them of safety concerns about third generation oral contraceptives; and if he will make a statement. [25810]

  Mr. Malone
  The Medical Direct Mail Organisation.

  Mr. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which members of the Committee on Safety of Medicines subcommittee briefed on 10 October 1995 about third generation oral contraceptives were not members of the committee. [25590]

  Mr. Malone
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) on 19 December 1995 at column 1151. The ad hoc working group which met on 10 October 1995 included members of the Committee on Safety of Medicines and invited experts who were not members of the committee.

  Mr. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the safety of oral contraceptives following the most recent meeting of the Committee on Safety of Medicines; and if he will make a statement. [27332]

  Mr. Malone
  Ministers rely on their advisory committees for an assessment of such issues.

  Mr. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what attachments were enclosed with the letter of 11 October 1995 relating to oral contraceptives containing desogestrel or gestodene in order to inform consideration of the relevant issues by the Committee for Proprietary Medicinal Products. [27354]

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

  Mr. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health who represented the United Kingdom at the three meetings of the Committee for Proprietary Medicinal Products held on(a) 17–18 October 1995, (b) 26–27 October 1995 and (c) 16 to 18 April 1996. [27355]

  Mr. Malone
  The two members of the Committee for Proprietary Medicinal Products nominated by the United Kingdom, supported as necessary by experts relevant to the items under consideration.

  Mr. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if the consideration of safety issues by the Committee for Proprietary Medicinal Products relating to oral contraceptives containing desogestrel or gestodene took place on the basis of article 8 of directive 75/319/EEC. [27357]

  Mr. Malone
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave him on 8 February at column 344. The Medicines Control Agency made a written request that the Committee for Proprietary Medicinal Products include the matter for discussion at its meeting of 17–18 October 1995. The subsequent CPMP position statement dated 27 October 1995 makes reference to article 8 of directive 75/319/EEC.

  Mr. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what advice the Committee on Safety of Medicines communicated to the relevant pharmaceutical companies about the product licences relating to desogestrel or gestodene, following its meeting on 13 October 1995; [27368]
  500
  (2) what advice the Committee on Safety of medicines gave regarding action on the product licences relating to desogestrel and gestodene at its meeting on 13 October 1995. [27362]

  Mr. Malone
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave him on 8 February at column 343. The advice of the Committee on Safety of Medicines to the licensing authority is confidential.

  Mr. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 19 December,Official Report, column 1153, on what date the final report of the World Health Organisation study on oral contraceptives was produced; and if he will make a statement. [27370]

  Mr. Malone
  A number of reports of the World Health Organisation's findings were provided to the Medicines Control Agency between July and October 1995; the report referred to in the answer given on 19 December 1995 at column 1153 provided the final results on venous thromboembolism of the WHO study. The MCA subsequently received a copy of the manuscript which was submitted to The Lancet for publication, dated 13 October. This document was not different in any important way from the previous report received by the MCA.

  Mr. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 2 April,Official Report, column 185, if clinical trials with oral contraceptives containing gestodene were terminated in October 1995. [27364]

  Mr. Malone
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave him on 8 February at column 346.

  Mr. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 2 April,Official Report, column 185, if the referral to the Committee for Proprietary Medicinal Products of 11 October 1995 was made by one of the United Kingdom's representatives on the Committee for Proprietary Medicinal Products. [27365]

  Mr. Malone
  Yes. The written request that the Committee for Proprietary Medicinal Products include the safety of oral contraceptives on the agenda of its meeting of 17–18 October was made by one of the United Kingdom's representatives on the committee.

  Mr. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 2 April,Official Report, column 184, if the then Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Sackville), was consulted prior to the written request that the Committee for Proprietary Medicinal Products consider safety issues relating to oral contraceptives containing desogestrel or gestodene; and if he authorised the request to the CPMP. [27366]

  Mr. Malone
  Disclosure of information such as that requested would be in breach of the long-established convention, observed by successive Governments, protecting the confidentiality of the internal decision-making process.

  Mr. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if the chief executive of the Medicines Control Agency authorised the request of 11 October 1995 to the Committee for Proprietary Medicinal Products relating to desogestrel and gestodene. [27367]
  501
  Mr. Malone
  The chief executive of the Medicines Control Agency agreed with the United Kingdom delegate to the Committee for Proprietary Medicinal Products that this would be an appropriate issue for the committee to consider at its meeting of 17–18 October 1995.

  Mr. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if the Committee on Safety of Medicines has made a re-assessment of the safety of desogestrel and gestodene in the light of evidence in December 1995 and January 1996. [27369]

  Mr. Malone
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 25 April at column 281.

  Mortality Statistics (Doncaster)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what were the five most common causes of death for women in the Doncaster health authority in the last year for which figures are available; and what were the figures for each of the previous four years. [26645]

  Mr. Horam
  The information is shown in the table.

  Office for National Statistics: Top five causes of death in females in Doncaster health authority 1990–94

  Cause

  Number of deaths

  1990

  Ischaemic heart disease (ICD1 410–414)

  344

  Cerebrovascular disease (ICD 430–438)

  173

  Malignant neoplasm of trachea, bronchus and lung (ICD 162)

  76

  Breast cancer (ICD 174)

  67

  Pneumonia (ICD 480–486)

  67

  1991

  Ischaemic heart disease (ICD 410–414)

  362

  Cerebrovascular disease (ICD 430–438)

  204

  Pneumonia (ICD 480–486)

  98

  Breast cancer (ICD 174)

  77

  Malignant neoplasm of trachea, bronchus and lung (ICD 162)

  74

  1992

  Ischaemic heart disease (ICD 410–414)

  376

  Cerebrovascular disease (ICD 430–438)

  190

  Pneumonia (ICD 480–486)

  84

  Breast cancer (ICD 174)

  74

  Malignant neoplasm of trachea, bronchus and lung (ICD 162)

  70

  1993

  Ischaemic heart disease (ICD 410–414)

  345

  Cerebrovascular disease (ICD 430–438)

  210

  Pneumonia (ICD 480–486)

  113

  Breast cancer (ICD 174)

  79

  Malignant neoplasm of trachea, bronchus and lung (ICD 162)

  72

  1994

  Ischaemic heart disease (ICD 410–414)

  331

  Cerebrovascular disease (ICD 430–438)

  168

  Pneumonia (ICD 480–486)

  142

  Malignant neoplasm of trachea, bronchus and lung (ICD 162)

  72

  Breast cancer (ICD 174)

  69

  1 International Classification of Diseases, 9th revision. For 1992 and earlier years, the number of deaths represents the deaths registered annually. Figures from 1993 onwards are those which occurred annually; prior to 1993, the date on which deaths were registered and occurred differed, e.g. a death on 31 December 1991 would probably have been registered in 1992.

  Non-prescription Medicines
  Sir John Hannam
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the average cost in 1995 of medicines bought without a doctor's prescription in the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Holland, Ireland, Italy and Spain. [26792]

  Mr. Malone
  This information is not available.

  Grant Aid Funding
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many successful applications for section 65 grant aid funding for HIV-specific applicants were made by(a) non-London organisations and (b) new applicants in 1996–97. [27011]

  Mr. Horam
  Two successful grant applications were made by non-London organisations in 1996–97. There have been five new grants awarded in 1996–97.

  British Dental Association
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has recently received from the British Dental Association; and if he will make a statement. [26995]

  Mr. Malone
  We are in regular contact with the British Dental Association on a wide range of current issues.

  Dental Services
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans his Department has to re-introduce free dental examinations under the national health service; and if he will make a statement. [26983]

  Mr. Malone
  There are no plans to re-introduce free dental examinations for all. Certain groups, including all those under 18 years, are exempt from all dental charges, including those for examination. Others on a low income may get free dental treatment or help with the cost. In all, some 25 per cent. of adult courses receive full or partial relief from charges.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many people in the United Kingdom currently have private dental plans; and if he will make a statement; [27021]

  (2) how many people were registered with private dentists in (a) 1984, (b) 1989, (c) 1992 and (d) 1995; and if he will make a statement. [27113]

  Mr. Malone
  Information on the number of people with private dental plans or who receive dental treatment outside the national health service is not available centrally.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent representations his Department has received concerning the re-introduction of free dental check-ups; and if he will make a statement. [26977]

  Mr. Malone
  The Department of Health has received a small number of letters concerning the re-introduction of free dental examinations.
  503
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans his Department has to develop the role of the community dental services as a safety net; and if he will make a statement. [26981]

  Mr. Malone
  On 5 April 1995 the Government announced their proposals for the reform of national health service dentistry. These reforms included the Government's intention of strengthening the role of the community dental service.

  Water Tower Mental Hospitals
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the location by health authority of the water tower mental hospitals in England which were open in March 1994 giving their planned date of closure; and if he will list those hospitals which were open in March 1995 and March 1996 together with the number of patients in each of those dates. [27092]

  Mr. Bowis
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave her on 1 April at columns 48–50.

  Abortions
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the East London and City health authority's instruction to Newham Healthcare NHS trust in respect of(a) patients other than those deemed clinically urgent and (b) women requiring abortions. [27145]

  Mr. Horam
  Agreement has now been reached between East London and City health authority and Newham Healthcare NHS trust on a contract for services for 1996–97. The health authority's instructions concerning patients other than clinically urgent cases and women requiring termination of pregnancies ceased to apply on 25 April.

  GP Fundholders
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the total amounts of money given to the National Association of Fundholding Practices in each year since 1990; what amounts are proposed for 1996–97 and 1997–98; and if he will list the individual amounts given and what they were given for. [27400]

  Mr. Malone
  The National Association of Fundholding Practices does not receive central funding to support the administration or management of its association. In 1994, the National Association of Fundholding Practices received a project grant of £50, 000 in response to a bid it made to the Department to develop, on behalf of the national health service, a national mentorship scheme available to all general practitioners considering entering fundholding.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will place in the Library a copy of the NHS executive letter sent to family health services authorities in May 1990 in respect of management allowances for general practitioner fundholders; and if subsequent alterations of that letter's contents were communicated to the family health services authorities. [27509]
  504
  Mr. Malone
  Yes. Health service guidelines are issued to all relevant health service authorities and copies are normally placed in the Library.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list all representations received from family health services authorities between 1991 and 1995 in relation to the lawfulness of their payments of management allowances to general practitioner fundholders. [27506]

  Mr. Malone
  No such representations were received.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he has taken to implement the recommendations of the internal inquiry into the circumstances leading to the delay in obtaining parliamentary approval for the payment of management allowances to general practitioner fundholders. [27504]

  Mr. Malone
  A team has been set up to produce an action plan to implement the recommendations of the inquiry.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he received from the National Audit Office in respect of the independent inquiry into the circumstances leading to the failure to enact secondary legislation in respect of the payment of management allowances to general practitioner fundholders. [27507]

  Mr. Malone
  None. Officials from the Department have kept the National Audit Office informed about the independent inquiry and provided them with all relevant papers.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will place in the Library a copy of the outline clause drafted in January 1991 to provide parliamentary approval for the payment of management allowances to general practitioner fundholders; and when the decision was taken to cease progress on it. [27508]

  Mr. Malone
  No. I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave him on 25 April,Official Report, columns 282–83.

  Long-term Care
  Mr. French
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he is now ready to publish his consultation paper on making provision for long-term care. [27640]

  Mr. Dorrell
  The consultation paper will be published shortly.

  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will meet the Alzheimer's Disease Society to discuss the Government's consultation paper on long-term care; and what other voluntary organisations he will be consulting. [27451]

  Mr. Bowis
  When it is published, we shall welcome comments on the consultation paper from all those who have an interest in the proposals it makes.

  Drug Abuse
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will publish the report of the task force to review services for drug misusers. [27840]
  505
  Mr. Bowis
  The report of the task force, which was chaired by the Reverend Dr. John Polkinghorne, President of Queen's college Cambridge, will be published tomorrow. Copies will be placed in the Library.

  Pre-payment Prescriptions
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what evaluation his Department has carried out of the awareness among people with severe asthma of the availability of pre-payment certificates for prescriptions; what steps are being taken to encourage general practitioners and pharmacists to promote the pre-payment scheme; and what assessment he has made of the benefits of the introduction of a weekly pre-payment stamp. [26815]

  Mr. Malone
  No evaluation has been made, but we are aware of the research being carried out by the National Asthma Campaign and will be interested in the results. Information about the pre-payment certificates is available in the Department's new leaflet HC11 "Help with Health Costs", which is available from general practitioners, pharmacists and national health service trusts. All prescription forms refer to the availability of pre-payment certificates, as does a poster about NHS prescription charges which has been sent to all pharmacists.

  We have no plans to introduce a weekly instalment system as this would be costly to administer and would as a result increase the overall cost of the pre-payment certificate. This would defeat the object of ensuring that pre-payment certificates are good value for money for those who need regular medication.

  Malcolm Huriston Corporate Consultancy
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many contracts the Malcolm Huriston Corporate Consultancy has had from his Department; and if he will provide details. [27275]

  Mr. Bowis
  Two. I refer the hon. Member to the reply that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State gave him on 23 April,Official Report, column 104.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 23 April,Official Report, column 104, on Mr. Nigel Whittaker, what level of remuneration the Malcolm Huriston Corporate Consultancy will receive; and for how long its services will continue to be provided. [27285]

  Mr. Bowis
  The level of remuneration is commercial in confidence. The contract is for a project and not a period of time.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 23 April,Official Report, column 104, on Mr. Nigel Whittaker, how the Malcolm Huriston Corporate Consultancy was employed; and if there was competition for the contract. [27284]

  Mr. Bowis
  The contract was placed in accordance with departmental guidance and a number of other teams were considered.

  Beccles and Lowestoft Hospitals
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the impact of eligibility criteria for NHS continuing care on the viability of Beccles and Lowestoft hospitals. [27277]

  Mr. Bowis
  Health authorities were required to consult key local interests in developing policies and eligibility criteria for meeting continuing health care needs. The hon. Member may wish to contact the chairman of Suffolk health authority for information relating to Beccles and Lowestoft hospitals.

  "Choosing with Care"
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many of the recommendations of the Norman Warner report "Choosing with Care" have been carried out. [27279]

  Mr. Bowis
  Local authorities have reported significant progress on implementing all of the recommendations addressed to them.

  All the recommendations addressed specifically to central Government and local authority associations have been implemented or are under longer-term consideration.

  Nurses
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his estimate of the shortfall in nurses in each specialty. [27281]

  Mr. Horam
  There is not a general nationwide shortage of nursing staff but there are some local nurse shortages in some specialties in some parts of the country. The national health service executive issued annual national education and training planning guidance EL(95) 96 on 23 August 1995 to inform education commissioning in 1996–97. Further guidance will be issued this summer.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many student nurse places have been vacant in each of the last five years; [27280]

  (2) if he will publish figures on the nursing student intake for each of the last five years by region. [27282]

  Mr. Horam
  This information is not available centrally. The hon. Member may wish to contact the English National Board for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting, which records data relating to student nurse numbers.

  Surplus Property
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 21 March,Official Report, column 321, if he will provide a regional breakdown of the number and value of surplus NHS properties. [27283]

  Mr. Horam
  The information is shown in the table.

  Region

  Number

  £ million

  Anglia and Oxford

  71

  112

  Northern and Yorkshire

  182

  148

  North Thames

  113

  269

  North West

  70

  89

  507

  Region

  Number

  £ million

  South Thames

  99

  255

  South and West

  105

  104

  Trent

  57

  80

  West Midlands

  179

  146

  Total

  876

  1,203

  NHS Trusts (Finance)
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which trusts were placed on a red light status in relation to their finances in each region in 1995–96. [27274]

  Mr. Horam
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave him on 22 March,Official Report, column 382.

  Social Services (Contracting Out)
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what services provided by local authority social services departments it is his policy not to have contracted out to the independent sector. [27278]

  Mr. Bowis
  Social services authorities may contract out particular services if the relevant law permits it. Subject to that, our policy is that authorities should arrange for the provision of all services in the most cost-effective way.

  Extra-contractual Referrals
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 19 April,Official Report, column 640, if he will publish figures for total expenditure on extra-contractual referrals for each year for which figures are available. [27286]

  Mr. Malone
  The national health service executive's estimates of outturn expenditure on extra-contractual referrals in England is shown in the table. As the data have been collected on a fast-track basis and for management purposes they are not subjected to the normal validation checks and definitions.

  Year

  Estimated total ECR expenditure £ million

  Estimated ECR expenditure as a percentage of total health authority expenditure Percentage

  1992–93

  295

  1.5

  1993–94

  350

  1.7

  1994–95

  386

  1.8

  Deregulation
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if the consultation document, "Deregulation: a Model Appeals Mechanism, Model Provisions with Regard to Appeals against Enforcement Action" applies to residential care homes and services for children under eight years. [27276]

  Mr. Bowis
  In "Moving Forward", the consultation document for the current review of regulation and inspection of social services, we have asked for views on what changes are necessary to current regulatory 508
  arrangements to ensure that enforcement mechanisms are fair and effective with particular reference to the principles set out in section 5 and schedule 1 of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994.

  Safety of Medicines
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if the Licensing Authority, the Medicines Control Agency, the Medicines Division of the Department of Health or the Committee on Safety of Medicines have sought to prevent publication in peer-reviewed journals of information derived from yellow card data. [27351]

  Mr. Malone
  Yes. Permission to publish information derived from yellow card data might be refused if it were considered that inappropriate use was being made of the data.

  Mr. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list all legal actions relating to the anti-depressant Mianserin in which the Licensing Authority or Committee on Safety of Medicines has been involved; and for each action if he will indicate whether the Licensing Authority or the CSM initiated the action, what was the legal basis of the action, what was the outcome and what were the legal costs incurred by the Licensing Authority or the CSM. [27352]

  Mr. Malone
  The Licensing Authority, the Medicines Commission and the Committee on Safety of Medicines were involved in judicial review proceedings in connection with Mianserin in 1988 and 1989. The actions were initiated by the pharmaceutical company Organon Laboratories Ltd. in 1988 under section 107 of the Medicines Act 1968 and included applications for several interim orders between 20 December 1988 and 3 January 1989, prior to judicial review proceedings which took place in February 1989. Two applications for review were sought by Organon. The Licensing Authority lost the case on appeal in January 1990. Details of the legal costs are no longer held.

  Mr. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list all legal actions relating to Triazolam in which the Licensing Authority or the Committee on Safety of Medicines has been involved; and for each action if he will indicate whether the Licensing Authority or CSM initiated the action, what was the legal basis of the action, what was the outcome and what were the legal costs incurred by the Licensing Authority or CSM. [27353]

  Mr. Malone
  The Licensing Authority is currently involved in judicial review proceedings in connection with Triazolam. The action was initiated by Upjohn Ltd. in 1993 under section 107 of the Medicines Act 1968. The case has not yet been concluded.

  Mr. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the members of the pharmacovigilance subcommittee of the Committee on Safety of Medicines for the period from 1 January 1996. [27363]

  Mr. Malone
  The membership of the sub-committee on pharmacovigilance is as follows:

  Professor A. Breckenridge (Chairman): professor of clinical pharmacology, Liverpool university

  509

  Professor Darbyshire OBE: head of the Medical Research Council's HIV clinical trials centre, University college London medical school

  Dr. K. Beard: consultant physician in geriatric medicine, the Victoria infirmary, Glasgow

  Ms A Lee: principal pharmacist, drugs and poisons information

  centre, regional drugs and therapeutics centre, Newcastle

  Dr. T. MacDonald: senior lecturer, department of clinical pharmacology, Dundee university

  Professor K. MacPherson: professor of public health epidemiology, London school of hygiene and tropical medicine

  Dr. M. Pirmohamed: lecturer in clinical pharmacology and therapeutics Liverpool university

  Professor L. Ramsay: consultant physician at Hallamshire hospital and professor of clinical pharmacology and therapeutics, Sheffield university.

  Mr. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list those medicines whose licence has been(a) suspended, (b) revoked by the Licensing Authority or (c) withdrawn by the licence holder as a result of information from the yellow card system indicating the year in which the change in licence took place; who prompted the action; and what were the adverse effects identified by the yellow card system. [20505]

  Mr. Malone
  [holding answer 21 March 1996]: Information about the safety of medicines is obtained from numerous sources of which the United Kingdom's yellow card scheme is only one. It is unusual for licensed medicines to be withdrawn from the market solely on the basis of information from yellow cards.

  The information shown in the table lists those medicines licensed and marketed in the UK after the Medicines Act 1968 came into effect whose licence has subsequently been (a) suspended or (b) revoked by the Licensing Authority, or (c) withdrawn by the licence holder, as a result of information from the yellow card scheme.

  The table does not include those medicines whose licence was suspended, revoked or withdrawn before the product was marketed in the UK. Nor does it include medicines which were granted a product licence of right when the Medicines Act 1968 came into force, or those with safety hazards identified primarily through other sources of information such as spontaneous adverse drug reaction schemes outside the UK.

  Brand name (drug substance)

  Year action taken1

  Major safety concerns

  (a) Medicines whose licence has been suspended by the Licensing Authority

  Opren (benoxaprofen)

  1982

  Hepatotoxicity, serious skin reactions

  Flosint (indoprofen)

  1983

  Gastrointestinal toxicity, multi-system toxicity

  (b) Medicines whose licence has been revoked by the Licensing Authority

  Zomax (zomepirac)

  1983

  Anaphylaxis, renal failure

  (c) Medicines whose licence was withdrawn by the licence holder

  Osmosin (indomethacin—

  1983

  Small intestinal perforations

  510

  Brand name (drug substance)

  Year action taken1

  Major safety concerns

  modified release) Zelmid (zimeldine)

  1983

  Neuropathy, convulsions, hepatotoxicity

  Methrazone (feprazone)

  1984

  Serious skin reactions, multi-system toxicity

  Pe xid (perhexiline)

  1985

  Neuropathy, hepatotoxicity

  Mental (nomifensine)

  1986

  Haemolytic anaemia, renal failure

  Glauline eye drops 0.6 per cent. (metipranolol)

  1990

  Uveitis

  Micturin (terodiline)

  1991

  Cardiac arrhythmias

  Roxiam (remoxipride)

  1994

  Aplastic anaemia

  1 The year the action was taken relates to the year in which the product was removed from the market.

  Medicines Control Agency
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what is the scheduled retirement date for the chief executive of the Medicines Control Agency; [27356]

  (2) what is the scheduled retirement date of the head of the post-licensing business of the Medicines Control Agency. [27361]

  Mr. Malone
  Personal information about individual members of staff is confidential.

  Mr. Congdon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the key business targets for the Medicines Control Agency for 1996–97. [27885]

  Mr. Malone
  I have today placed a copy of the 1996–97 key business targets of the Medicines Control Agency in the Library. The agency's business plan will be placed in the Library in the near future.

DEFENCE

  Serco Ltd.
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what assessment he has made of the risks of a conflict of interest arising in respect of his Department's permanent secretary and his relationship with Serco Ltd.; and if he will make a statement; [26699]

  (2) what contracts his Department and his agencies have with Serco Ltd.; what is the current cost; when each contract ends; what are the penalties involved should he seek early termination of the contract; and if he will make a statement. [26677]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The permanent secretary has no relationship with Serco Ltd.

  My Department's central contracts records show that there are about 150 current contracts with various Serco companies, including Serco Ltd. The total value is approximately £125 million. These do not include contracts placed by various defence agencies, which are the subject of separate replies from chief executives. To provide details of the values of each individual contract and to research details of the end dates could be carried out only at disproportionate cost.
  511
  Although each contract will probably contain the Ministry's standard "break" condition which enables the Ministry to terminate the contract after a given period without penalty, there may be other termination provisions tailored to the circumstances of a particular contract. Again, details of these could be researched only at disproportionate cost.

  I have asked the chief executives of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency, the Meteorological Office and the Hydrographic Office to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from J. P. Clarke to Mr. M. Redmond, dated 30 April 1996:
  You recently asked the Secretary of State for Defence a Parliamentary Question relating to contracts placed by the Ministry of Defence and Defence Agencies with Serco Limited. As your question relates in part to the Hydrographic Office and such issues fall within my responsibility as Chief Executive of the Hydrographic Office, I have been asked to reply to you.
  The Hydrographic Office currently does not have any contract with Serco Limited.
  I hope this information has been helpful.

  Letter from John Chisholm to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 30 April 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Defence has asked me as Chief Executive of the Defence Evaluation & Research Agency to reply to your question about contracts with Serco Ltd.
  DERA currently has about 240 contracts and enabling arrangements with Serco Ltd at a total value to £76M. All these contracts will have an early termination clause but I am afraid that it would involve disproportionate costs to check the precise terms of each and also to list the normal end date of each contract.
  I am sorry I could not be more helpful.

  Letter from J. C. R. Hunt to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 30 April 1996:
  As Chief Executive of the Meteorological Office I am replying to your recent question to the Defence Secretary concerning contracts with Serco Ltd.
  Currently we have no such contracts.

  Marine Collisions (Liability)
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what liability for compensation under which international conventions Her Majesty's Government have in respect of accidental collisions between Royal Navy submarines and oil industry installations in(a) the United Kingdom and (b) other waters. [26915]

  Mr. Soames
  We are not aware of any international conventions stipulating a liability on Her Majesty's Government in the event of a Royal Navy submarine accidentally colliding with an oil industry installation. In the highly unlikely event of such an incident occurring, liability for compensation would be determined on the basis of the particular circumstances of the incident.

  RAF Jets
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list those companies with maintenance contracts to repair and service RAF fast jets. [27303]
  512
  Mr. Soames
  Four fast jet types remain in service with the Royal Air Force: Hawk, Tornado, Harrier and Jaguar. Contracts for major airframe and major component maintenance including repair and overhaul on those aircraft are held by the following UK companies:

  Major airframe maintenance

  British Aerospace

  Major components/equipments

  Rolls-Royce

  Lucas Aerospace Fairey Hydraulics

  Hunting Aviation

  Computing Devices (Hastings)

  W. Vinten

  Moog Controls

  Microturbo

  Gas Turbine Company

  GEC-Marconi

  Smiths Industries

  Dowty

  Flight Refuelling

  Pilkington Optronics

  Aerospace Composite Technologies

  Oxley Aviation

  BP Chemicals.

  In addition, a number of companies in Germany and Italy are involved in work on RAF aircraft and components under sub-contract to Panavia, the Tornado consortium company, notably Daimler-Benz Aerospace and Alenia.

  Mr. Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on how many occasions since 1992 penalties have been imposed as a result of poor quality maintenance on Royal Air Force fast jets. [27294]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  None.

  Infra-red Technology
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if infra-red technology is listed by his Department as a key defence technology. [27168]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  We do not keep a detailed list of specific key technologies. Consideration is given periodically to technologies which are important in support of defence research priorities. Infra-red technology is not a separately identified technology in this context. However, it does contribute to other, more broadly defined areas of technology which are considered important.

  Defence Secondary Care Agency
  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the creation of the Defence Secondary Care Agency. [27628]

  Mr. Soames
  The Defence Secondary Care Agency will form on 30 April 1996 when secondary medical care currently provided on a single-service basis will be included within a joint service agency under the control
  513
  of a chief executive. Until a decision is taken on its final location, the headquarters of the DSCA will be based in London. The DSCA will include:

  (a) The Royal hospital Haslar at Gosport;

  (b) The Duchess of Kent's hospital at Catterick;

  (c) Three Ministry of Defence hospital units within the NHS trust hospitals at Derriford, Plymouth, Frimley Park, Camberley, and Peterborough;

  (d) The Princess Mary's hospital at Akrotiri, Cyprus;

  (e) The defence service medical rehabilitation unit at RAF Headley Court in Surrey.

  In addition, DSCA personnel will be stationed in smaller facilities at other locations, both at home and overseas.

  Each service will continue to recruit to its own medical branch and will be responsible for issuing appointments and posting orders for personnel of their particular service into, within and out of the agency after agreement with the chief executive and for an agreed duration. It is expected that uniformed secondary care personnel will spend the major part of their career working within the agency.

  The aim of the agency is to make available to commanders in chief appropriate medically trained secondary care service personnel, when required for training, exercises and deployments. In support of this aim the agency will deliver timely and effective treatments consistent with expected outcomes by providing the best possible medical care to all agency patients.
  514
  The chief executive, Mr. R. G. Smith, will be afforded greater responsibility and flexibility to build upon the professional ability and reputation for excellence of secondary care personnel from all three service medical branches. This will ensure that the MOD retains the capacity to deploy trained secondary care staff on military operations, to provide the best possible medical care to all agency patients, and at the same time maximise value for money in the delivery of secondary care for service personnel in order to maintain their operational readiness during peacetime.

  The chief executive has been set the following key targets for the first year of the operation:

  (1) From within available personnel resources, to meet the services' requirements for secondary care skill mix in support of operations.

  (2) To maintain the most appropriate clinical environment for all staff to ensure professional recognition and accreditation by statutory bodies in the light of their continually improving standards.

  (3) To meet all milestones for phase 1 of project ICE—improving clinical excellence.

  (4) To assess the agency against investors in people criteria, within year one and produce an action plan for full accreditation.

  (5) To develop average prices for finished consultant episodes for each specialty, and at each site.

  (6) To meet an efficiency target of 4 per cent. for financial year 1996–97.

  I have arranged for copies of the agency's framework document to be placed in the Library of the House.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Chester.

Scotland: Wildlife Monitoring
Lord Mackie of Benshie Lord Mackie of Benshie asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they are taking, through their agencies, to monitor wildlife in the terrestrial, freshwater and marine environments of Scotland.
The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, Scottish Natural Heritage, as the main government agency for conservation of the natural heritage, has the primary responsibility for monitoring wildlife in Scotland. It has an extensive monitoring programme which is co-ordinated with a wide range of other agencies and non-government organisations.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. I am glad that the Government are taking an interest. However, is he aware that, without an overall plan for monitoring these important factors, and without the resources, the voluntary labour that is plentifully available will be wasted? What are the Government doing about that?
The Earl of Courtown: The noble Lord is quite right; the voluntary sector is very important in work for the environment all over the United Kingdom. So far as monitoring is concerned, it is recognised that some aspects of wildlife monitoring are relatively well covered. That is true particularly in the case of birds. For others, such as lower plants, invertebrates, fish and mammals, the information base is less developed. The priority in many cases for species and habitats is to establish a satisfactory baseline inventory. As the noble Lord commented, one has to find out what is there in the first place before changes in levels can be monitored. As regards funding, I believe that in the region of £20 million per annum is spent in Scotland on monitoring wildlife:
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, in relation to such monitoring exercises, especially of the marine environment and the conservation of salmon, to what extent does the Minister think that the north-east drift net fisheries are adversely affecting the salmon stocks in Scottish rivers?
The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, salmon fisheries are a very important part of industry in rural parts of Scotland. We fully recognise the value of wild salmon to Scotland's rural communities and its importance from
1466
the standpoint of natural heritage. As the noble Lord is aware, we are very concerned over drift netting, and the position is continually being looked at.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the scientific community, together with landowners and conservationists, are all most grateful for the Government's recent decision to extend their support for the acid rain monitoring programme for at least another year; and that we all hope that that support will continue for many years to come?
The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for letting me confirm that the network is to continue. Much of this is down to my noble friend Lord Ferrers, who is unable to be with us in the Chamber today.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, is it not the case that the budget for Scottish Natural Heritage for 1996–97 has been cut from £40.3 million to £36 million? How does that tie in with the Minister's assurances that all the services will be kept up? Will he assure the House that Scottish Natural Heritage will continue to support the Joint Nature Conservation Committee?
The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, not for all her content but for the point she makes. The commitment remains to ensure that Scottish Natural Heritage is sufficiently well funded to be able to fulfil its statutory and other obligations. Both Her Majesty's Government and SNH are absolutely certain that we shall be able to carry that out. Circumstances have changed, and it should be noted that efficiency savings are available and improvements in effectiveness are expected to follow from the implementation of the recent efficiency review and also The Way Ahead.
The Earl of Clanwilliam: My Lords, will my noble friend inform the House of the large subventions made by this Government to the environmentally sensitive areas, which I believe amounted to some £66 million? Will he also comment on the fact that the Organic Aid Scheme received only £1 million?
The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, I am afraid I did not catch everything that my noble friend said. The environmentally sensitive areas in Scotland are very important. There are 10 such designated areas in Scotland. We continuously review and measure changes in vegetation cover and landscape features; there is also more specific monitoring of individual sites on farms and crofts in the scheme.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, has anybody monitored the population of birds of prey (raptors) since so many have become protected species, and their effect on the population of small birds, in particular songbirds?
The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, the noble Lady makes a very important point. The Biodiversity Action Plan takes that into account.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, the Minister will be aware that the Scottish Environmental

1467
Protection Agency and Scottish Natural Heritage are obviously doing much the same type of work in slightly different spheres. We were promised in the 1995 Bill that there would be a memorandum of agreement between the two bodies. Can the Minister say—perhaps not now; he may prefer to write to me—whether there is such a memorandum and where it can be obtained? If it has not yet been published, can he say whether it will be published soon?
The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, I always try to help the noble Lord but in this instance I cannot. I am afraid that I shall have to write to the noble Lord.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My Lords, did the Minister notice that yesterday fishermen were taking salmon from the River Tweed at Berwick-upon-Tweed and inserting small radios in the stomach of the salmon before putting them back in the water? If the Minister should be talking over the radio to any of those salmon, can he ask them to persuade their colleagues to swim further north up into the Scottish rivers?
The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, as usual, the noble Lord makes a very interesting point. As I already said to his noble friend, Scottish salmon are very important.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, in view of the number of interesting points made, would the Minister do his homework again and see that resources are given instead of being reduced?
The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, I am fully satisfied that resources are available, as are the rest of Her Majesty's Government and SNH. Monitoring will continue and we shall look to the safe environmental future of Scotland.

Training and Enterprise Councils
2.44 p.m.
Lord Dormand of Easington Lord Dormand of Easington asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they intend to take any action to improve the working of training and enterprise councils.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Lord Henley): My Lords, the three-year licensing process is supporting continuous improvement in training and enterprise councils. To be awarded a licence a TEC must meet rigorous criteria across all that it does. That includes assessment of the TEC's corporate planning and indicators of its strategic impact, a corporate programme and internal capability. Sixty-four TECs have already been awarded licences. The Government's intention is to contract only with licensed TECs after 1997.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, does the Minister agree that one of the most unsettling and worrying aspects of TECs at the moment is that their legal status is not quite clear? If Oldham TEC wins
1468
charitable status arising from its court case with the Inland Revenue, would it not make some of the activities of the TECs illegal? Perhaps equally important, would it not affect the liabilities of members of TECs? In those circumstances, is it not likely—in fact, highly probable—that some members will cease to do work for TECs?
Lord Henley: My Lords, the noble Lord is right to draw attention to the uncertainty following the case for charitable status which involved Oldham TEC. I understand that the Inland Revenue has appealed to the High Court the decision of the special commissioners of Inland Revenue to grant Oldham TEC charitable status for tax purposes. At the moment, all I can say to him is that the department is considering with the Charity Commission and the TEC National Council the implications for TECs following that decision if the Inland Revenue fail to win at a higher court.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, is it a fact that the application for charitable status came about because the TEC in question was concerned about financial resources and felt that obtaining charitable status would improve the financial resources available? Is it also true that TECs constantly seem to have to battle with the Treasury for adequate resources? Furthermore, how do the Government deal with what appear to be varying degrees of effective performance among the different TECs? How is it intended to obtain consistency of performance?
Lord Henley: My Lords, it is not for me to guess the motive behind Oldham TEC's decision to take this matter to the courts. On the wider question as to whether TECs are adequately funded, I do not accept what the noble Baroness said. Overall, TECs' budgets this year, 1996–97, are set to increase. That is a sign of Her Majesty's Government's confidence in TECs. Obviously, we want to make sure that all TECs perform adequately. That is why we introduced the licensing process and why we intend to continue with it.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, in view of the success of the licensing process, can the Minister say what percentage those 64 TECs represent? What help will be available to other TECs which are less likely to reach the criteria and for how long may that help go on?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I cannot help the noble Lord with the precise percentage of those which have not been licensed. My arithmetic is not up to it at the Dispatch Box. I can assure him that 64 out of 74 TECs have already been licensed. That leaves 10 TECs waiting to be licensed by next year. Certainly, we shall offer what help we can to those 10 TECs to go down with the licence process. I hope that the TEC National Council will do the same. Certainly, we hope that all will be licensed by next year.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, does the noble Lord recall that the policy director of the TEC National Council criticised the bureaucratic procedures under which TECs have to operate? Those procedures were said to be a natural consequence of allowing technocrats, distant from

1469
the field, to design systems of operation in environments which they had not experienced and did not understand. How does the Minister respond to those strictures?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I am aware of those criticisms. They were looked at by the Employment Select Committee in another place in its recent report on the work of TECs. But, as the committee's report emphasises, there is a balance to be struck between maintaining proper accountability in expenditure of public funds and ensuring that the detailed oversight of checks is not overly bureaucratic. The Government aim to bring greater trust and clarity into their relationship with TECs. I believe that there has already been considerable progress in that area.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, can the Minister say how many councils have so far gone bankrupt? I know of one case in south London.
Lord Henley: My Lords, the only TEC which was forced to go into liquidation was the South Thames TEC. We believe that that was not as a result of fraudulent claims, as alleged by some, but was due to its own inadequate financial control systems. We trust that with the improved measures and licensing procedures that have been introduced that will not happen again.
Lord Peston: My Lords, these councils are called training and enterprise councils. Can the Minister say where the enterprise comes in? What do they do that encourages enterprise? In particular, if they are encouraging enterprise and wish to go bankrupt, should not they be allowed to do so?
Lord Henley: My Lords, the councils work at a local level in partnership to bring about and encourage economic development of their local area. They assist in driving forward national targets for education and training and also help deliver the national training and enterprise programmes of Her Majesty's Government. They are training and enterprise councils, and we believe that they do their job well.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I do not want to press the Minister too much. However, the word "enterprise" has a definite meaning within the market mechanism and it is not about training. It involves enterprise, which is about risk-taking. That is why I should like the Minister to explain what it is that a council can do that encourages such enterprising, risk-taking activity. He has not yet given us an example.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I shall be more than happy to arrange for the noble Lord, Lord Peston, to visit one of the training and enterprise councils. I hope the noble Lord will take me up on that offer. I can refer him to a number of good training and enterprise councils in London, or perhaps the noble Lord would like to travel further afield. It may do him good to see some of the rest of the country. I shall be more than happy to arrange
1470
that; I am sure too that the TEC involved will be more than happy to show the noble Lord exactly what it can do to encourage enterprise and training.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, the Government have been encouraging the amalgamation of TECs and chambers of commerce. However, does not the Minister agree that the present position is so uncertain that the Government should be abandoning that situation?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I do not accept that. There is a case to be made for TECs, where appropriate, to merge with their chambers of commerce if they and their chambers of commerce believe something can be gained from that. But that is a decision for individual TECs and chambers to pursue if they believe it to he appropriate.

DSS: Policy Change Effects
2.52 p.m.
Earl Russell Earl Russell asked Her Majesty's Government:
In the light of the reply given by Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish on 28th March (WA 149) that "While every attempt is made to identify direct implications for other departments arising from public expenditure decisions, it is not feasible to take account of every potential second-order effect, still less to quantify it", what weight should be placed on the Department of Social Security's estimates of the public expenditure consequences of the measures it proposes.
The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish): My Lords, the Department of Social Security, like all other departments when considering policy changes, consults widely within government to ensure that the full implications of any such changes are properly considered. The nature of such consultation will depend on the policy change in question. Her Majesty's Treasury is fully involved in that process.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for those remarks. I appreciate that he has difficulty in giving exact figures. But when the Department of Social Security says that a measure will save, for instance, £65 million, we need to understand what that means. In the Minister's Written Answer, when he said that it was not possible to quantify every potential second-order effect, was he telling me that the department takes account of some second-order effects or that it takes account of no second-order effects?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, as I have explained to the noble Earl on a number of occasions, the Department of Social Security works inside the Government and, along with our colleagues in other departments, we try to take into account those effects which may come from decisions that we are proposing to take. Sometimes those are easily quantified but on other occasions they are not, perhaps because they are behavioural and therefore difficult to work out. But we do

1471
our best and over time the noble Earl will find that on some occasions we overestimate the amount of savings that we make and on other occasions, I am happy to say, we underestimate the amount of savings we make.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, is it not clear that the savings in one department's budget can cause increased expenditure in others? Is it not important that the Minister looks at his own department—for example, in the area of social security benefits available for pregnant women to provide an adequate diet during pregnancy? Refugee women are of particular concern in that regard at the moment. Is it not clear that savings in social security benefit may increase the incidence of low birthweight babies and the highly expensive care to the NHS for neo-natal intensive care for those children? Is it not important that the overall costs are taken into account?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, that is exactly what I said when I said that we consider with other government departments what the overall implications will be. We aim, and I believe we succeed, to make sure that all our policies result in a net saving to the Government overall. Even though there may be some expenditure to another department, that expenditure will be less than the savings gained by us. Controlling the social security budget is an important issue. In relation to the incidence of low birthweight, as I explained on a previous occasion at this Dispatch Box, giving up smoking is perhaps the single most important thing mothers can do to help the birthweight of their children.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, how does the Minister's department manage to keep within the limits set down by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury if another department does not underspend when his department overspends?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am but a boy when it comes to answering a question like that from the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, who knows jolly well how the Treasury keeps government departments under control from the five difficult years he spent doing it in the last Labour Government. The important thing is that government departments are aware of each other's policies. They attempt to quantify any implications that fall to them. When the Government agree on a policy, all the various aspects—the pluses and minuses—are taken into account. As the noble Lord will expect me to say, the Treasury usually expects to come out on the plus side.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, the noble Lord's replies to this Question suggest that the only things that count are those that can be counted. How does the Minister arrive at the social security costs? Is research taking place to find out the costs of the changes being made? Otherwise, we are just relying on figures which have no research base behind them at all.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I do not agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, that we should not take into account the cost to the general taxpayer of social security. We must take that into account; any responsible government must take it into account, although I appreciate that members of the party
1472
to which the noble Baroness belongs do not have to worry too much about the increased cost to the taxpayer. When we look at the different decisions we must face in order to control our budget, we look carefully at the consequences of those decisions and at the various research papers on those issues that come out of universities before we arrive at our final conclusions.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, the noble Lord cannot get away with simply sneering at my party, but we will leave that on one side for the moment. He may learn some day that we have rather more say in matters than he predicts. The noble Lord did not answer my question. How do the Government find out systematically what the real costs are? The noble Lord has not yet told us that. To refer to odd papers coming from universities not commissioned for the purpose is no answer at all.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I suggest that the noble Baroness looks at the report from the Department of Social Security which is published annually concerning the research we fund. She will see a fair body of expensive research funded directly by us in order to address the policy questions we are considering.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, what research was conducted by the department on the second-order effects of disallowment from benefit into crime rates and the catastrophic increase in the number of people in our prisons? If the noble Lord says that no such research exists, how can we make an estimate of the net results of any changes in the benefits when those increases in crime and the huge cost of building new prisons is set off against the reductions in expenditure?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, as I said, we look at all aspects of government expenditure. If the Home Office felt that something we were doing would impinge on its department, it would include the Home Office being involved in any discussions about possible repercussions on public spending. In relation to the rise in crime, I am fairly old-fashioned and take the view that badness has a lot to do with it.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, the Question asks about the cost of DSS activities for other government departments. Perhaps I may ask the Government a question about the cost of DSS activities for the DSS itself. In recent years the Government have cut DSS staff and have stopped home visits, and are now threatening to close the free benefit helpline. Does the Minister agree that at the very same time accuracy in delivering income support has deteriorated very badly indeed; from almost 95 per cent. accuracy three years ago to 78 per cent. accuracy today, an error figure of £750 million? Do the Government see any connection at all between DSS cuts in staff and the increased DSS error in paying income support?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I think the noble Baroness is a little confused between the past and the future. We have announced that we are looking carefully at a change programme which will bring considerable savings to the Department of Social Security and result in fewer staff. Through that

1473
change programme we hope, by making the systems more efficient, to reduce mistakes, to reduce the time that is taken and to make sure that benefit goes to the people who deserve it. It is a change programme first attacked by the party opposite in the person of Mr. Chris Smith, its social security spokesman, and then approved of in a leaked letter from the Shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury, who said that all these possible savings were perfectly feasible.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, will the Minister explain to the House why the error rate for income support has risen by nearly 20 per cent. in three years?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I shall have to look that up to make sure that the noble Baroness is giving me a correct and accurate figure. One of the problems with income support is that it is complicated and one is very dependent on accurate information coming from the claimant. We hope to simplify the system, improve the way information comes from the claimant, and in that way reduce the number of errors. I hope I have the noble Baroness's support.

A.1: Alconbury Hill
3.1 p.m.
Lord Renton Lord Renton asked Her Majesty's Government:
Why so many hedgerows, shrubs and trees near the A.1 at, and northwards from, Alconbury Hill have been cut down, and whether they will ensure that fresh shrubs and trees will be planted there as soon as possible.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Viscount Goschen): My Lords, site clearance is under way in preparation for upgrading the A.1 to motorway standard between Alconbury and Peterborough. The scheme is one of the design, build, finance and operate contracts. The clearance is necessary for Road Management Group, which has been awarded the contract, to gain access to the site and for the consequent construction of the new road and its structures. Considerable landscaping measures are included as part of the scheme. It is proposed that some 400,000 new trees and shrubs will be planted, which will considerably enhance the existing landscape.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. Perhaps I may remind him that 46 ecological sites are affected by this development. Is he aware that a mass of ancient hedgerows, which produce beautiful blossoms especially at this time of year, have been torn down, unnecessarily in some cases? Will he ensure that their replacements are mature enough to take root and flourish without delay?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, my noble friend is quite right. This is clearly an important ecological area. That is why such care has been taken to make sure that the environmental impact of the road is minimised and it is why such environmental and landscaping work will
1474
take place. I can also reassure my noble friend that the work will take place, will fit in and will integrate with the existing landscape. That is one of the major priorities.
Lord Monson: My Lords, when the time comes to replant along the A.1, will the noble Viscount do his best to ensure that the same mistakes are not made as were made when the A.11 was widened from Stump Cross north-north-east towards Newmarket? There the planting was extravagantly dense, with the trees spaced less than a metre apart as opposed to the more normal 2.5 metres or so. Is not this practice expensive and wasteful both initially and when the time comes to start thinning?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I am sure that every endeavour will be made to ensure that the planting process is not wasteful and that the end result is an improved environmental area after this major road has been built.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, does my noble friend recognise that, although the Department of Transport plants oceans of trees along roads, it generally fails to look after them, which means that the trees are wasted? Will he try to explain to the department that the most expensive and time-consuming business in tree establishment is aftercare?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, clearly the proper maintenance and care of the trees is an important factor. That has been built into the DBFO contract for the Road Management Group. It will have a duty to make sure that the trees are properly maintained.
The Earl of Drogheda: My Lords, might not consideration be given when new roads are made to the possibility of transplanting mature hedges and trees? Given the fact that large earthmoving equipment is present, it is perfectly feasible to do so.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I shall ensure that the noble Earl's suggestion is passed on to the Highways Agency. I should have thought that it has already considered the possibility of transplanting trees. But where that is not possible, it is right that we should plant trees—and not just trees but trees and shrubs of the same species as are already in the area—and that they should fully integrate with the existing woodland environment.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, is it not the case that until now the Department of Transport has subcontracted the care and maintenance of motorway trees to the Forestry Commission? Is that still the practice, or has something happened to change it? Can we not be confident that the Forestry Commission will do a good job?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I am not able to advise the noble Baroness on what has happened with previous schemes. I shall find out and let her know. This scheme is rather different because it is one of the new phase of design, build, finance and operate schemes, whereby the party that has been awarded the contract

1475
not only builds the road but maintains it for a period—in this case, some 30 years. It is therefore its responsibility to maintain the trees.
Lord Renton: My Lords, is it not important that even motorway development should blend with the local scenery and tradition instead of it becoming an incongruous contrast with it? The replanting of shrubs is much more suitable than merely growing masses of trees which may not produce blossoms and which are merely an unfortunate contrast with what has gone before.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I could not agree with my noble friend more. It is right and proper that, where possible, the road should blend in with the existing landscape. That is why this new major development essentially follows the same road corridor as the existing A.1. A number of mitigation measures have been taken. There is a combination of trees and shrubs; and more than that, they are of the same species as those already in the area.

Offensive Weapons Bill
3.7 p.m.
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Prisoners' Earnings Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Public Service: Select Committee
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That a Select Committee be appointed to consider the present condition and future development of the public service in Great Britain with particular regard to the effectiveness of recent and continuing changes and their impact on standards of conduct and service in the public interest;
That, for the purposes of the Select Committee, the public service shall be deemed to exclude local government, the National Health Service, schools and institutions of higher and further education, but to include all government departments, executive agencies, non-departmental public bodies and other organisations created by or working for the public service;
That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following Lords be named of the Select Committee:

L. Brabazon of Tara,

L. Croham,

L. Cuckney,

L. Gillmore of Thamesfield,

L. Harris of Greenwich,

L. Lane of Horsell,

1476

L. Merlyn-Rees,

B. O'Cathain,

L. Rodgers of Quarry Bank,

B. Serota,

L. Slynn of Hadley (Chairman),

L. Taylor of Gryfe.

That the Committee have power to adjourn from place to place;
That the Committee have leave to report from time to time;
That the Committee have power to appoint specialist advisers; and
That the Minutes of Evidence taken before the Committee from time to time shall, if the Committee think fit, be printed and delivered out.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Non-Domestic Rating (Information) Bill
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of commitment be discharged.—(Lord Gray of Contin.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Asylum and Immigration Bill
3.9 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Blatch.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Extension of special appeals procedures]:
[Amendment No. 14, as an amendment to Amendment No.1, not moved.]
The Chairman of Committees: In calling Amendment No. 15, as an amendment to Amendment No. 1, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, and if it is not too far out of order to do so, I am sure that we all wish the noble Lord many happy returns of the day.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 1, Amendment No.15:
Line 25, leave out from ("persecution") to end of line 27.
The noble Lord said: I thought that the Chairman was supposed to sit in a purely formal capacity. I am grateful to him for his good wishes. I cannot think of a worse way of spending a birthday afternoon than dealing with the Asylum and Immigration Bill.
For the benefit of those Members of the Committee who were not present last Tuesday, Amendment No. 1 is the Government's welcome redrafting of the complicated formulation of Clause 1, which appears in the Bill as printed. My amendment may seem perverse at first sight because it seeks to remove the specified reasons for a fear of persecution
"by reason of the appellant's race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion"
from sub-paragraph (4)(a) of the new clause. There are good reasons for that and I hope to show the Committee that the amendment is well justified. The reasons for a fear of persecution given in the new clause are taken from the 1951 convention. We welcome, as we have always done, the continued commitment of the Government to the convention in their legislation, as under the 1993 Act and the immigration rules, and their commitment that those rules shall never be in conflict with the convention.
The United Kingdom has signed other relevant conventions. It is important that they should be taken into account because they properly extend the definition of persecution and, above all, the definition of refugee status. Therefore, on the very sound legal principle that if one includes one list of reasons, then, by implication, one excludes another—I shall not say it in Latin this time—it is necessary to remove the specified reasons in order to include the other reasons.
The UN Convention on Torture, which is surely entirely appropriate to refugee status and therefore to asylum-seeking, with which the clause is concerned, says that an asylum seeker should not be sent back to face torture, inhuman or degrading punishment. The Committee recognised the importance of that in agreeing the amendment proposed by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Liverpool last Tuesday. But that is not the only additional convention with which we shall be concerned. I remind the Committee of the European Convention on Human Rights which, in Article 3, extends the reasons not only to cover persecution by a government but also persecution for which governments are not responsible but which they have been unable to stop. An example was given in Committee in another place. Mr. Martinez Quijano, of Colombia, applied for refugee status, not for convention reasons but because he was threatened by the drug barons who control so much of life in that unfortunate country. It was not that the state of Colombia was supporting or in any way condoning the threats made by the drug barons but that it could not bring a halt to their activities. When the case came to the Immigration Appeal Tribunal it recommended that he should be given exceptional leave to remain. The Home Office refused but eventually he was allowed to stay having been granted exceptional leave to remain under judicial review.
In a number of cases adjudicators responsible for appeals have accepted that an applicant has suffered torture but not for reasons given in the 1951 convention. Under those circumstances, as the Minister reminded us when we were dealing with Amendment No. 3 last week, the only power that the adjudicator has is to recommend exceptional leave to remain rather than full refugee status.
By excluding the specific provisions from Clause 1 we seek not to deny the importance of the convention and its reasons but to confirm that we have other international obligations under further treaties and conventions which should be included as proper reasons for an asylum seeker and for refugee status. I beg to move.
3.15 p.m.
Lord Renton: Although I am a keen supporter of the Government and commend them for bringing forward the new clause to replace Clause 1, the argument put forward by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, is worthy of consideration. However, it is more a drafting matter than the matter of substance the noble Lord tried to indicate that it raises. "Raises" is the operative word. If Members of the Committee look at line 28 on page 2 of the new clause they will see that whereas in line 28 the word "shows" is used, in line 29—
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I did not move Amendment No. 14 which was concerned with "show" and "raise". I moved, and I am speaking to, Amendment No. 15, which is not about those words.
Lord Renton: In that case I ask the noble Lord to accept my apologies and to say that I shall come back to the matter, if necessary, when I have understood it.
Lord Dean of Harptree: I express some doubt about the amendment. It may be that additional clarification will be of some assistance. The amendment, along with others to Clause 1, substantially weakens the fast-track procedure which I regard as essential to the Bill. It is really the heart of Clause 1. The procedure is important in order to deal with abuses of our hospitality and to ensure that claims which are unlikely to be successful are dealt with as speedily as possible, thus safeguarding the position of genuine claimants. It is essential that there should be adequate safeguards in a sensitive matter of this kind.
The fast-track procedure provides those safeguards. It provides for an adjudicator who is independent. He is appointed by the Lord Chancellor, and he will consider each case on its individual merits. The procedure also provides for appeals. Unless I am mistaken in my understanding, the amendment goes a considerable way to substantially weaken the heart of Clause 1 of the Bill.
Baroness Blatch: In the spirit of unity and consensus, perhaps I may begin by agreeing with the proposition advanced by the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of

1479
Haringey, have a very happy birthday. But now, to business—although I hope that nothing that I say will detract from that proposition.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, proposes to delete the last 15 words of sub-paragraph (4)(a), which is aimed at a claim which does not show a fear of persecution. Under the amendment, sub-paragraph(4)(a) would no longer specify that the persecution must be for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion. The existing text follows the wording of the 1951 convention. Moreover, asylum appeals under Section 8 of the 1993 Act are made on the grounds that the applicant's removal would be contrary to the United Kingdom's obligations under the 1951 convention. It is for those reasons that we consider that sub-paragraph (4)(a) should remain precisely aligned with the convention's criteria.
It is also right to say that nothing in this part of the Bill precludes all our obligations under other international law. If the Opposition really want to incorporate international instruments into our immigration law, they will need to make a far more radical revision of the 1793 Act. That Act provides that it is on 1951 convention grounds that an appeal is exercised under Section 8 against removal. Clause 1 relates specifically and solely to appeals on asylum grounds. It is for that reason that we believe it important to leave it as it is. The example of Colombia which the noble Lord gave a few moments ago confirms that discretion is exercised on the granting of exceptional leave for those applicants who fall outside the 1951 criteria. The question of giving legal effect to the adjudicator's recommendations is to be debated later, as the noble Lord knows, when we reach Amendment No. 48. I hope that Amendment No. 15 will not be pressed.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Perhaps I may deal with the last point first. The Minister is right to say that the example that I gave resulted in the person concerned being granted exceptional leave to remain. However, he was not granted that exceptional leave to remain thanks to the Government; he was granted it as a result of judicial review and in the face of that exceptional leave to remain being recommended by the adjudicator, but followed by a refusal from the Home Office. So I do not think that the Minister should use that example to claim credit for the Government's flexibility.
I suppose that the Minister is trying to make me happy by suggesting that I should be much more radical in my attacks on the Bill. However, I would have to be radical going back over a period of 23 years to the 1973 Act. I am not convinced that such a wholesale approach would meet with the approval of the Committee—and still less with the approval of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, if we were to use amendments to legislation now to extend the scope of the 1973 Act. I thought—I still think—I gladly give way to the Minister—
Baroness Blatch: I thank the noble Lord for giving way. I think that we are both wrong. I think that
1480
I referred to the 1873 Act while the noble Lord referred to the 1973 Act, whereas we are talking about the 1993 Act.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Just to compound the confusion, the Minister actually referred to the 1793 Act. In fact, we are concerned with both the 1971 and the 1993 Acts. It was the 1971 Act which first gave statutory authority to the 1951 convention.
I am grateful for the Minister's confirmation that we take account of the United Nations Convention on Torture and of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Minister had better say that because that is what the Committee decided when it approved Amendment No. 3 last week. When it is printed, it will be part of the Bill that torture is to be treated as a proper reason for seeking asylum and for being granted refugee status.
I do not think that the Committee should be asked to express an opinion on this matter. I could indeed have been more radical in my attack on the Bill, but I think that the point was made by the decision taken by the Committee last week, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment No. 15, as an amendment to Amendment No. 1, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 1, Amendment No. 16:
Line 27, at end insert ("or a risk of torture or inhuman or degrading treatment").
The noble Lord said: My noble friend Lord Dubs spoke to this amendment last week when it was grouped with Amendment No. 3 which was approved by the Committee. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: It is important that we debate this amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, did not speak to Amendment No. 16 last week. I have with me the Hansard of that debate which I have read carefully. The noble Lord spoke specifically to the amendment proposed by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Liverpool. The whole debate was about Amendment No. 3. Amendment No. 16 was not mentioned until I wound up and I mentioned it simply because it was grouped with Amendment No. 3. Amendment No. 16 is, however, a free-standing amendment. It is not consequential upon Amendment No. 3 and I believe that if the Committee wants to debate it, it should do so. I certainly wish to speak to the amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I acknowledge that although Amendment No. 16 was debated last week, it was the Minister who referred to it specifically rather than my noble friend. The amendments were intended to be taken together. If my noble friend had referred to it more specifically, I should have insisted that the two be taken together. In view of the fact that other amendments on torture are to be considered in relation to later clauses, I shall not press the procedural matter now, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

1481
Amendment No. 16, as an amendment to Amendment No. 1, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Williams of Crosby Baroness Williams of Crosby moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 1, Amendment No. 16A:
Line 27, at end insert—
("() it does not show a fear of persecution by reason of gender").
The noble Baroness said: The amendment has been tabled partly to learn more about the Government's intentions. I shall move it briefly because we may want to return to the matter in the broader debate on Clause 1 stand part.
Perhaps I may outline briefly why I have tabled the amendment. I refer first to the answer given by the Minister just now. If the Bill keeps closely to a set of criteria upon which the decision as to whether to allow in an asylum seeker is upheld, the issue of whether gender is such a base becomes more important. Perhaps I may say why I believe that this is of such very great importance. In 1951 the list which appears on the face of the Bill was drawn up by the European Convention. I am not trying in any way to amend that convention, but it did not include the issue of gender. That was reasonable at the time because gender would not have been seen as a ground for persecution. Would that that were still so.
I refer to one of the more recent cases to come before the Immigration Appeal Tribunal. It involved a woman in Iran, a financial adviser to a substantial company, who was threatened by a group of fundamentalist Moslems for refusing to wear a veil. She was told that if she refused to wear a veil, she would be treated as a prostitute. She was a Western-educated woman who believed that she was entitled to wear decent and respectable clothes of her own choosing. She was badly beaten in prison and told that if she continued not to wear a veil she would be subject to capital punishment on the ground that she was a prostitute. We were perhaps not aware of such cases in 1951, but alas they are now cropping up regularly, notably in Algeria.
The second reason why I advance the amendment relates to the strong recommendations that were laid down—and accepted by the Government—in the Warburton Report, which, as many Members of the Committee will know, dealt with the systematic use of rape as a weapon of war in Bosnia. Our Government joined other members of the European Community in saying:
"member States are appalled by these crimes and the inhumanity which marks the present conflict".
The recommendations indicated that refugees who had suffered those extreme forms of assault were entitled to special and careful consideration if they applied for refugee status. That is in the Warburton Report, which is in the Library. At that time throughout the European Union a number of women were accepted as refugees because of the terrible circumstances that they had experienced.
More recently, at the United Nations Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing, the United Kingdom Government, among many governments, gave their name to the recommendations under the action programme, one of which read:
"Apply international norms to ensure equal access and equal treatment of women and men in refugee determination procedures and the granting of asylum, including full respect and strict observation of the principle of non-refoulement".
That is in paragraph (h) in the section of the United Nations action programme which deals with refugees and women who have been subject to systematic violence. I had the honour and pleasure of seeing Her Majesty's Government strongly support the debates in Beijing, fully recognising the specific dangers to which women were subject very much in the context of their gender.
I fully appreciate that this amendment may not be properly drafted, but I hope that the Minister will not object to it simply on drafting grounds. It would be easy to withdraw it and bring it back under proper drafting procedures at Report stage. At this moment I am simply concerned to establish whether the noble Baroness perceives the special reference to social groups as pertaining to women who suffer on the grounds of their gender unspeakable torture and behaviour. She may be able to give us that response. I am sure she will understand that to describe half the human race as a social group is a little odd. I have tabled this amendment with the intention of finding out how Her Majesty's Government feel about it, with the possibility of bringing it back at a later stage in the passage of this Bill. I beg to move.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I seek clarification on the amendment. With respect to the noble Baroness, does not the amendment extend the traditional definition under the convention of fear of persecution? If so, what practical purpose does it serve? If there is persecution, under the convention as presently defined it is immaterial whether it relates to a man or a woman. I fail to understand the position. There must be something missing from my appreciation. I cannot see what useful, practical purpose is served by the amendment. I say so with respect and in ignorance.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: There is something missing from the appreciation of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway. The noble Baroness is moving an amendment which adds "by reason of gender"; in other words, if a man or woman is persecuted for the other reasons in sub-paragraph (4)(a) that is not affected. But if a woman in particular is persecuted, not for the other reasons but by reason of gender, that is a good reason for the inclusion. To that extent, although the amendment is probably in the wrong place, I support the principle behind it.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: But if he or she is persecuted by reason of gender, that person is nonetheless persecuted within the meaning of the convention. I still do not see the point.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: There is growing evidence of specific forms of maltreatment of those held

1483
in detention in certain countries—I am reluctant to give the details to the Committee—which are specific to the gender of those detained. I can give some inhumane and unpleasant instances. These are forms of persecution that would not be targeted at anybody of a different gender. It is that particular group of actions against individuals that I am anxious to bring within the scope of the Bill, not because I wish to include all women—which would be ludicrous—but because there is substantial evidence of certain kinds of behaviour by states towards women specifically on the ground of gender. I am advised by lawyers who are concerned in this matter that the wording of the existing convention does not deal with those cases.
Baroness Elles: In view of the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, I believe that a very strong case has been made on this issue. I should like to put a question to my noble friend the Minister. Sub-paragraph (4)(a) includes a list of grounds on which persecution may be feared. In responding, can my noble friend say whether that is an exhaustive list or whether it is necessary to include the word "gender" to ensure that the cases properly raised by the noble Baroness are taken into account? I believe that the drafting and status of that paragraph will help the Government in deciding whether to accept, perhaps in a reworded form, the amendment moved by the noble Baroness.
Lord Avebury: My noble friend is quite right in saying that at the time of the introduction of the 1951 convention the particular forms of persecution suffered by women in many countries were not widely appreciated. She mentioned Iran in particular. I should like to expand upon that, if I may.
It is not the policy of a few rabid fundamentalists in Iran which causes women to be persecuted for not wearing a Hijab, which is the garb that covers the whole of a person's hair and leaves no part of the skin exposed except the hands. This is the policy of the mullahs' government; that is to say, the theocratic state imposed by Ayatollah Khomeini. It dictates that all women are to be dressed in a particular way on penalty of severe punishment, which may sometimes be inflicted on the spot by the religious police. It may also mean that a woman can be taken to prison and given a long sentence, or even be subject to lashes, for behaviour which is considered wrong in a woman but perfectly all right in a man. I believe that that answers the question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway.
Why should there be any specific mention of penalties that are applied to women? In states such as Iran there are forms of persecution that do not apply to men. It is not just a question of dress but a question of the status of women in the particular society: their right to employment, their entry into certain disciplines in the universities, their position under the law and their responsibilities within the family. A woman has no rights over her children in Iran. She has no right to become a judge. The head of state must be a man. Everything in the theocratic state of Iran is male-oriented and calculated to keep women in the position of second-class citizens.
1484
In the face of that kind of discrimination, if a woman presents herself at a port of entry in the United Kingdom and claims to have been discriminated against as a woman in Iran, and to have suffered persecution by reason of her gender, I believe that it is perfectly right to grant her asylum on that basis and not stick to the letter of the 1951 convention. I absolutely agree with my noble friend that if we cannot do that by strict adherence to the 1951 convention then it must be spelt out on the face of the Bill.
Earl Russell: I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, will forgive me for saying that he made an interesting point. I mean it. It was interesting. It is a point which was made in this place in 1628. The answer it received then seems to be entirely relevant to today. This place was then considering the Petition of Right which was a declaration of liberties. Someone said:
"If we should leave any liberty out of this list, does that mean we do not in future enjoy it?".
The answer of course was that that was not so; that no list of liberties can possibly be exhaustive, because the types of oppression and injustice which may happen are infinite, and no document can possibly specify them all.
The noble Lord will appreciate that within the principles of the common law there is a great deal of room for adaptation to change. If he considers the change in the applications the common law has made of the word "reasonable" over five or six centuries, that will make the point. So the liberties, as spelt out in the UN convention, must be capable of growth.
It is true, as my noble friends have said, that a high proportion of persecution that takes place in the world today is directed at women by reason of their gender. If the type of persecution that is taking place is changing, we must take account of it. It is not just the cases my noble friend has mentioned, it is the cases of women who wish to leave a violent and dangerous husband. They are in many cases treated worse than they were three or four centuries ago. So, where the type of persecution with which we deal is changing, we must recognise that fact. That is the point to which my noble friend wished to call attention.
Baroness Rawlings: I understand fully what the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, is saying about torture and women, but surely if a woman is badly tortured that will come under "torture". It does not need to come under "women" whatever be the torture—when it is against a woman, she will come under the procedure for asylum because she has been tortured. Any man can be tortured in the way that a woman cannot be tortured. We will not insert an extra provision relating to gender for men because men may be tortured in a way that might not be possible for women. In this case including gender may perhaps be going too wide.
Baroness Blatch: I should like to deal with the amendment in two ways. First, I shall deal with the technical aspect of the amendment. The amendment flies in the face of many amendments tabled by the

1485
Opposition today which attempt to restrict the categories of applicant whom the Bill proposes should be considered for certification.
Amendment No. 16A would insert an additional category of asylum claim to which the special appeal procedure can apply into sub-paragraph (4) in Clause 1. I should say at the outset that the amendment is defective because, as drafted, it would enable the certification of all asylum claims which do not show a fear of persecution by reason of gender.
There is a temptation that we should accept the amendment because it would, in a way, foreshorten some of today's debate. It would allow us to certify the vast majority of asylum claims. I know that that cannot be the noble Baroness's intention, and such an indiscriminate extension is not acceptable to the Government. So in an attempt to safeguard one additional category, the truth is that all other categories would be certified. I know that that is not the noble Baroness's intention.
However, the noble Baroness's intention in tabling the amendment is to prevent us certifying a refused claim under sub-paragraph (4)(a) if it alleges persecution on grounds of gender. The amendment is unnecessary, and I shall explain why. If a person shows a fear of persecution, including a fear based on gender grounds, that person would normally have done enough to escape certification under indent (a). That would be the case, for example, if the applicant alleges that his or her human rights will be threatened because of gender. I have to say to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, that my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway's understanding of this part of the Bill is right.
That does not of course mean that a gender-based claim would be exempt from a certificate if it is manifestly fraudulent, or meets one of the other criteria under Clause 1. Nor does it mean that such a claim would always succeed. I can assure the Committee that gender is taken into account in the assessment of individual asylum claims where that is relevant. However, our experience suggests that, in practice, few, if any, asylum applications made in the UK turn solely on the question of gender-based persecution. Applications normally involve claims of persecution on the grounds of race or religion or, for example, that a particular group of women faces persecution. Each case is considered on its merits. Each case that has been mentioned during the debate would be properly considered under even the 1951 convention.
The interpretation of a "social group" convention ground has been raised in debate by the noble Baroness. Our approach is not to define in the abstract whether women or men, or any other set of people, might or might not be regarded as a social group. Each individual claim is considered on its merits to determine whether the applicant can demonstrate, in all the circumstances of the case, that he or she has a well-founded fear of persecution in a particular country for any of the 1951 convention reasons. A range of possibilities exists; for example, from treatment of women generally, which may be discriminatory but may not constitute persecution, to a particular group of men or women
1486
who, because of the likelihood of persecution, are protected by the terms of the convention. Each set of circumstances, individual or collective, is addressed on its merits.
Gender is taken into account in the assessment of individual asylum claims where that is relevant. The Government believe that it is right that all asylum applications from men and from women should be considered without any discrimination in accordance with the criteria set out in the 1951 UN convention relating to the status of refugees. Each claim is considered on its merits to determine whether the applicant can demonstrate that he or she has a well-founded fear of persecution.
Rape and other forms of sexual violence clearly amount to persecution in the same way as do other acts of severe physical abuse. Whether less prejudicial acts or threats would amount to persecution will depend upon the circumstances of each case. In order to qualify as a refugee, the applicant would need to show that that fear of persecution was well-founded and based on a convention reason.
Women and, indeed, men who do not meet the requirements of the 1951 convention may be granted exceptional leave to remain in the UK if there are compelling humanitarian reasons why they should not be required to leave. The point made by my noble friend Lady Rawlings was right: sexual abuse is not specific to women or gender; men, too, can be sexually abused. There is a great deal of evidence that they are.
If it is serious abuse, it is persecution or torture. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, in his inimitable style, and calling upon his enormous understanding of history to which I defer absolutely, asked whether the list of grounds for persecution in sub-paragraph (4)(a) is exhaustive. The answer is that it is.
Lord Winston: Does the Minister regard separation from one's children unreasonably as being torture? Would that be regarded as being discrimination on the basis of gender? I should like clarification on that point.
Baroness Blatch: I should need to know all the circumstances. That is a broad scenario. It would depend upon why they were separated; what were the conditions of separation; and, frankly, whether it was a man separated from his family or a woman separated from her family. If the degree of persecution were such that it came within the convention, then it would be properly considered as a case within the broad parameters of the convention.
The convention refers to social groups, and I have given some indication that there is considerable interpretation of what constitutes a social group. It is a degree of persecution that would be proper in that case. Without more detail, it is impossible for me to answer that question specifically.

1487
To finish on the point as to whether the list is exhaustive, yes, it is exhaustive. But as I have said, and I hope that I have convinced the Committee, gender can be taken into account where it is relevant to the degree of persecution.
Earl Russell: Before my noble friend replies, perhaps I may thank the Minister for that reply. Perhaps I may say that an amendment may sometimes be unnecessary because it has been moved when, had it not been moved, it might be very necessary indeed.
Baroness Blatch: The debate on the amendment has been most helpful because the issue has concerned all Members of the Committee. I hope that I have been able to convince my noble friend that the issue of gender will be subsumed within the confined restraints of the 1951 convention. The debate has been useful on two counts; first, in explaining that the amendment is defective and, secondly, in trying to assure the Committee that such cases can be taken into account under the criteria set out in the convention.
Baroness Seear: I believe that the Minister said that "social group" could be applied to "gender group", either men or women. If that is so everyone is covered one way or another. What is the real interpretation of "social group"? Does it refer only to women or only to men?
Baroness Blatch: I said that it depends on the case. Someone may claim to have been persecuted and may have a well-founded fear of persecution. The example was given of a woman who refused to wear a veil being deemed a prostitute. The consequence of being a prostitute is that she may lose her life on that ground alone. It could be that a group of people who fall into that category could be constituted as a group. It would depend on the particular case, the particular degree of persecution and the social group; whether they are women or men, whether they belong to a particular group of women or men, or to a particular group of men or women who are persecuted and hounded simply because they are who they are or because they hold certain beliefs.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: I am grateful to the Minister for that full reply. I wish to clarify only one matter. She said that she needed to know exactly what case one might have in mind; perhaps I may give an example. I am somewhat haunted by my visit to the refugee camps in Croatia when evidence first emerged that there was systematic use of rape as an instrument of war. The Minister will remember that the Warburton Report was published soon afterwards. Would it be possible under the Bill to regard, for example, women subjected to repeated rape, in particular women under the age of maturity, by an enemy group as falling within the special social group definition? I was most anxious about the provision because the list appeared to be exclusive. Unless such women qualify as a special social group they will not
1488
be covered. That is one of the main reasons why I moved the amendment. Perhaps the Minister will clarify that final point.
Baroness Blatch: I understand that as regards the particular scenario set out by the noble Baroness the answer is yes. Perhaps I may read from Article 33 of the convention. It states:
"No Contracting State shall expel or return a refugee in any manner whatsoever to the frontiers of territories where his life or freedom",
which is the whole purpose of applying for asylum,
"would be threatened on account of his race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion".
Those are the parameters of the convention and all the examples given by the noble Baroness will fall within them. What would fall to be judged is the degree of the fear of persecution.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: In case there is a Division, perhaps I may assure the noble Baroness that if women are treated in the way she said they were, that would, within my concept, totally come within fear of persecution. My intervention, which was not intended to be discourteous, was based upon some such assumption.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 17 not moved.]
The Chairman of Committees: I must point out to the Committee that if Amendment No. 18 is agreed to I cannot call Amendments Nos. 19 or 20.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 1, Amendment No. 18:
Leave out lines 31 to 39.
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 18 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 19 and 20. Amendments Nos. 18 and 20 increase the rights of asylum seekers who have been recommended for deportation or for removal from this country. Amendment No. 19 is concerned with the rights of asylum seekers who are refused admission to this country at the airports or the seaports. Although the issues are similar there are some differences between them.
Perhaps I may deal first with the issues concerning deportation or removal of asylum seekers and the rights that they would lose under the Bill but would have if the amendments were passed. The problem is that persons living illegally in this country may at some point be recommended for deportation or the Government may wish to remove them. If that happens and the individual is in fear of persecution in his country he loses the right to have his case considered fully and properly because he will be certificated and therefore fast tracked as a result of the process I have described: the individual will have failed to apply for asylum before the deportation or removal proceedings are commenced.
The difficulty is that the individual may have an impeccable claim that he will be persecuted in his own country. Yet he will lose the right to have his case considered as fairly and properly as would have happened had he made an asylum claim before the deportation or removal procedures were initiated.
It is a well established fact that people may be deported for significant or relatively insignificant reasons. I do not condone any criminal offence, but a fairly minor criminal offence may lead to deportation proceedings starting. An individual will then have a lesser right to claim asylum or to have an asylum claim properly considered. That can be most alarming. Let us suppose that the asylum seeker was convicted in his country of the theft of a loaf of bread. I do not condone for one moment theft or criminal behaviour of any kind. However, one must set against that act what might be the most appalling outcome for that individual if he is returned to his own country. The amendment is tabled in order to ensure that such people have the maximum safeguards in terms of being able to exercise their full rights of appeal.
Amendment No. 19 is somewhat different and is concerned with people who arrive in this country and seek admission. If they do not claim asylum at the port of entry they too may be fast tracked. The amendment seeks to add the words "without reasonable explanation".
People arrive at British ports not knowing the detail of our procedures. If they have a visa to enter the country they may believe that that is sufficient and may intend to apply for asylum after admission. That is normal behaviour. Indeed, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees issued a statement to that effect in relation to the 1992 Bill in which it was stated:
"No conclusion with respect to an asylum-seeker's credibility—be it positive or negative—can be drawn from the fact that he has failed to apply forthwith upon arrival to a country".
However, the Bill seeks to draw precisely such a conclusion. It seeks to suggest that the asylum seeker's credibility is less and therefore his rights in terms of appeal procedures and time to deal with the various stages of the appeal will be reduced if there was a failure to apply immediately on reaching the port in this country. Indeed, asylum seekers may be apprehensive that if they claim asylum on arriving at Heathrow or Dover, the authorities might remove them immediately from the country. There is then the danger that they may be returned in stages to the country from which they fled and, therefore, face danger.
In that case, they have had the trauma of escaping from a country where they were facing persecution. They are relieved that they have arrived in Britain. They feel that they want first to get into the country. Therefore, with those worries, it is not surprising that people do not make the claim at the point of entry when they meet immigration officials.
Indeed, I have an unreported decision from an Immigration Appeal Tribunal case, Latif Mohammed v. Secretary of State on 1st February 1991. The judgment stated:
1490
"It seems to us entirely understandable that a potential refugee would think it far preferable to obtain admission before applying for asylum than applying for asylum at the airport".
It is to protect the rights of asylum seekers in those two situations that I have spoken to the amendments. I beg to move Amendment No. 18.
4 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: This amendment creates some severe practical problems. Surely if you have a genuine, real, important fear of persecution, either because you have been persecuted or tortured—and you know jolly well how serious that is—or because you are a member of a social group which has been subjected to such treatment, and you wish to claim asylum, in the ordinary way you should do so on arrival in this country.
The noble Lord quoted an unreported decision. There are all sorts of unreported decisions and all sorts of reported decisions. Some of them make sense and some do not. To my mind, the decision which the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, quoted makes no sense at all. I take the noble Lord's point that the procedures, certainly if they change, may well not be known. But surely that problem can be met in an administrative fashion by drawing to the attention of those who enter their position as regards claiming asylum if they wish to do so. Forms could be produced. There are various ways in which that can be done.
The noble Lord said that credibility is lessened if the claim is made after the person has come in rather than at the time of entry. Inevitably that is so. That is inevitable because if there is an urgent, genuine fear, in the ordinary way you state that when you reach this country.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: I should like to say a few words on Amendment No. 19 which would insert "without reasonable explanation" into the Bill. That would indicate that where a reasonable explanation is given, the issues would be set aside and the case looked at afresh.
I am concerned in particular about that because, like the Government, I appreciate that it is very important to draw a distinction between genuine asylum seekers and those who are not genuine. I might put the line between the two at a very different place from the Government, but of course I recognise that some asylum seekers are not genuine. Some asylum seekers are absolutely genuine. The crucial question facing this Chamber is to try to draw a correct distinction.
Without the addition of the phrase "without reasonable explanation", the Bill will almost certainly exclude the most genuine asylum seekers: those who do not have the benefit of legal advice; those who are not particularly knowledgeable about the procedures and ways of the Immigration Service in this country or, indeed, Europe and therefore have not the faintest idea about how our procedures work. Those people will emerge as refugees or asylum seekers in this country often after having undergone an extremely painful and difficult period of time in which they have been very frightened, even to the point of being frightened of losing their lives.

1491
It seems to me to be wholly unreasonable to expect such a person to go through all the procedures exactly as he should do—and they are very complex procedures; to expect such a person to know that it will help him to put in a claim for asylum the moment he reaches this country; and to expect him to know the complexities of our legislation which, heaven knows, many of us find difficult to follow.
Therefore, I urge the Committee and the Government to consider very carefully the addition of the very limited and simple phrase "without reasonable explanation". That would allow utterly genuine asylum seekers—who often have the worst cases and who do not know our procedures and do not handle them properly—not to be sent back to a country which in many cases has done them great damage before their case has been considered. Therefore, I support strongly Amendment No. 19.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I wish to oppose Amendment No. 19. The question of credibility is very much an issue here. The present pattern found by local authorities is that people come to this country on visitors' visas. They move in with supposed friends or relatives who have often given a complete undertaking to be responsible for bearing the entire cost of supporting them. The authorities then find that two days after their arrival, they turn up on the council's doorstep asking to claim housing benefits and any other benefits which can be obtained. I can see that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, is looking surprised but I am quoting the experience of London councils which have reported that history to me.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way, but I believe that she is really talking about Clauses 8, 9 and 10 rather than about this amendment.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: As I understood him, the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, is saying that Amendment No. 19 would mean that people do not have to announce on arrival that they wish to seek asylum. I oppose that. If that is not what he is saying, perhaps I am wrong. But I do not believe that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, is right and I am responding to what the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, proposed. Is that correct?
Lord Dubs: Yes, it is. The words that I seek to add to the clause are "without reasonable explanation". Those words apply specifically to people who are refused leave to enter and apply also to deportation and other considerations.
However, I believe that the point which my noble friend Lord McIntosh makes is that later parts of the Bill deal with housing matters. Here we are concerned about the rights of people when they seek to claim asylum. I am concerned that the fast-track procedure weakens their ability to do so effectively.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I still believe that we are debating the credibility or lack of credibility of people applying for asylum, whether or not they declare it on arrival. That is certainly the issue which I am addressing.
I consider that the most important issue of the whole Bill is that people should have to declare their position on arrival. That is a tremendous improvement. At present, this country is considered a soft touch in Europe because we do not have nearly such stringent regulations as other countries. I am 100 per cent. behind the genuine asylum seeker, but I am not at all in favour of the so-called economic refugee who wishes to come here.
The noble Baroness, Lady Williams, referred to the words "without reasonable excuse".
Baroness Williams of Crosby: I referred to the words "without reasonable explanation". That is rather different.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: The words "without reasonable explanation" are even less onerous. Anyone can give an explanation. I sit on an industrial tribunal. There is an extremely heavy onus of proof on an applicant who wishes his case to be considered, even if the application was lodged just one day late. Therefore, the phrase "without reasonable explanation" seems to me to be not nearly definite enough. If we were saying that there had to be a really strong reason—for example, that the person had arrived in such an ill state that he was not able to speak—then I might have some sympathy with the proposal. However, if it is just a case of someone not having thought up his explanation at the time and then having worked it out a few days later, I am afraid that that would not appeal to me. For that reason, I oppose Amendment No. 19.
Lord Avebury: The reason why genuine asylum seekers, of whom there are a great many, do not apply at the port of entry—I take the point made by the noble Baroness about bogus claims; indeed, I am not seeking to defend them—is due to the fact that they wish to obtain proper advice. I believe that the noble Baroness was present in the Chamber when that point was made on the last occasion. Such people are ignorant about our procedures. They arrive at a port of entry, go through the immigration procedures and then consult a solicitor or go to a citizens advice bureau, or whatever other agency is available to them, and ask for an explanation as to how they should present an application for asylum. I do not see how someone in a far-off country, without access to the Immigration Rules or procedures which apply here, could possibly guess the requirements in advance. I give way to the noble Baroness.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I am much obliged. Can the noble Lord tell me how such people get here in the first place? Do they not have a visa or some form of entry document when they first arrive? I am sure that they have access to some form of permission to enter the country. Therefore, they have had some advice from someone. I also believe that word gets around pretty

1493
quickly from one person to another and that such people would rapidly learn that they had to make such an application.
Lord Avebury: No. It does not happen that way. If people were sufficiently aware of the necessity to make such an application at the port of entry and they had a well-founded case, as many of them do, they would follow the advice given by the noble Baroness and, indeed, by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway. However, the noble Lord contradicted himself. He said, first, that everyone should know and that if a person had a genuine case then he would present it at the port of entry. But he then went on to say that, if they did not know, the situation would be corrected by some other means. The noble Lord then suggested the distribution of forms at airports. That indicates that there is a problem involved which even someone as hostile to immigrants generally and to asylum-seekers in particular as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, recognises. Therefore, we must deal with it in some way, either by saying that the person can give a reasonable explanation afterwards as to why he did not announce his intention of applying for asylum at the port of entry or by giving sufficient warning at the port of entry. That is perhaps an alternative that the Government should explore.
I do not go along with the noble Lord who suggested that forms should be distributed to everyone who arrives at Heathrow or Gatwick airport. I say that because there would be a vast number of false positives—that is to say, people who are genuinely coming here for a holiday and who have no intention ever of applying for asylum. However, the noble Lord has produced the germ of an idea. For example, notices could be displayed at the principal places of entry into the United Kingdom warning people of the consequences of the failure to declare their hand at the point when they present themselves to immigration officers, if it is their subsequent intention to apply for asylum. That would be one way to get round the problem identified by the noble Lord who moved the amendment.
There cannot be any doubt that other countries have such provisions. Indeed, I discovered only this weekend that the Turks (who are not particularly liberal in such matters) grant an asylum seeker 30 days in which to make an application. The person then forfeits certain rights at the end of that period. However, in this case, we are proposing to impose very much more severe restrictions on the rights of applicants than even a state like Turkey does which is not renowned for its observance of human rights.
I believe that a serious case has been made. If the Government are not able to address it by acceptance of this particular amendment, they should at least promise to take away and consider the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway. Of course, I do not say that that particular device is the ideal solution; but, nevertheless, it has at least put into the mind of the Government the thought that something must be done at the port of entry to safeguard the rights of people entering the country who do not make an application when, in the end, it is their intention to do so.
4.15 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: I hope that Members of the Committee will forgive me for intervening at this point. I believe that there is a great deal of misunderstanding both about this part of the Bill and about the amendments. It just might help if I address what I believe to be the misunderstanding. If noble Lords still wish to comment thereafter, I shall certainly listen to what they have to say.
The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, has misunderstood the effect of the Bill. It does not provide the power to fast track all claims which were not lodged immediately on arrival. It is concerned with those who are refused leave to enter at the port of entry—that is to say, it applies to people who attempt to enter as students or visitors but who are refused entry in that capacity and then claim asylum. So they will already have been considered under the 1971 Act. Judging by what has been said, there appears to be a great deal of misunderstanding.
The removal of paragraph (4)(c) enables the Secretary of State to issue a certificate if the asylum application was submitted after the applicant had been refused leave to enter, recommended for deportation by a court, served with a notice of intention to deport, or notified of his liability to removal as an illegal entrant. My noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes was right regarding what she thought she heard noble Lords opposite saying about the amendment. In fact, I am saying that their interpretation is wrong. I hope that I shall be able to convince my noble friend that what the Bill has to say in that respect is right.
We have become increasingly concerned about late asylum claims. By this I mean claims lodged in order to fend off removal and frustrate the enforcement of the immigration rules. Perhaps I may give the Committee some examples of this form of abuse. There are people who have been here illegally, sometimes for years, who are then apprehended by the immigration service and lodge an asylum claim just as they are about to be removed. Others seek leave to enter as a student or a visitor, for example, and only claim asylum when their application for leave to enter is refused and removal directions are set. The intention is to be able to resolve quickly claims of that sort which are manifestly lodged in order to delay removal action, rather than because the applicant has a well-founded fear of persecution.
Let me make clear, however, that this provision cannot apply to a claim simply because it is made after entry. It will not apply, for example, to someone who enters illegally or overstays his leave but who claims asylum before we take steps to remove him. Late claims will still be considered on their merits in the usual way and there will still be an appeal. But if they prove to be unfounded and asylum is refused, the Bill will enable us to apply the accelerated appeal procedure.
I have listened carefully to the arguments advanced for deleting our proposal to permit certification of claims lodged only after a court recommends deportation following a criminal conviction. It has been suggested that a criminal conviction here might put a person at risk of persecution at home. I am not persuaded—certainly not by what has been said in the course of today's debate. It

1495
is exceedingly unlikely that a criminal conviction in this country could form a legitimate convention basis for an asylum claim. But, in any event, if a claim made after such a conviction was found to be valid, asylum would be granted. In other words, if the case for asylum was a good one and came within the convention, then of course it would be granted and would not be thwarted by this measure. Similarly, if there are genuine humanitarian reasons why removal should not take place, exceptional leave would be awarded. But where it is found that claims made in such circumstances are not well founded, it is entirely appropriate that we should be able to apply the accelerated appeal procedure.
It has been proposed that we should provide an exception where the applicant gives a "reasonable explanation" for his failure to claim earlier. We think that that is unnecessary and undesirable. In the Bill as drafted, a certificate would only be available where the asylum claim has been fully considered and rejected. If it is found to be a valid claim, asylum or exceptional leave will be granted, despite the circumstances in which the claim was submitted. But if the claim is not well founded, the fact that it was submitted only after the commencement of removal proceedings or the refusal of leave to enter, will almost invariably justify a certificate. We need to send a clear signal that abuse of the asylum procedures in order to frustrate enforcement of our immigration laws will be met robustly.
The late claim provision in Clause 1 indent(c), does not apply to claims simply because the application was not made at the port of arrival. The Bill is clear on the point. The provisions only apply to applications lodged to stave off removal action. That is claims lodged after the applicant has been refused leave to enter and notified of his liability to deportation or his liability to removal as an illegal immigrant. Therefore, we are concerned because it is a growing form of abuse. It is entirely right that the Secretary of State should be able to certify claims lodged in this manner. It is responsible for much of the backlog in the system. I should have thought that noble Lords opposite would realise that this form of abuse is not acceptable. So long as there is a safeguard for genuine and well founded cases of people who have an opportunity to put their case within the system, I hope that our remedy for this kind of abuse in the Bill will be supported by Members of the Committee opposite.
Earl Russell: I recommend to the Government the practice of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. During the passage of the Child Support Bill 1991, a provision put a time limit of 28 days on appeals under a particular clause. I put down an amendment without reasonable explanation. It was one of those nights when it seemed as if the House would sit until 3 a.m., so I did not move it. However, when we reached the next stage the noble and learned Lord had incorporated it in the Bill. He had accepted it without so much as my moving it. That was a quite unparalleled act of generosity to which I should be glad to find a parallel. I recommend to the Government the wording
1496
of their own amendment, Amendment No. 1. Lines 20 and 21 deal with the absence of a passport and there are the words,
"without giving a reasonable explanation".
The noble Baroness said a great deal about abuse. Everyone is against abuse. The noble Baroness is against abuse but in trying to rule out the words "without reasonable explanation" she strengthened my suspicion that the fast-tracking of a case involves an element of prejudging the merits of the issue, or at least there is a risk that it might.
That is a great argument in reply to the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parks, on claiming at the point of entry. There are six or seven places in the Bill where we could insert the words. I suggest that we join issue on that argument on the question of whether Clause 1 stand part.
Lord Dubs: I emphasise the point just made that the expression "without reasonable explanation" is already on the face of the Bill. It is already the wording that the Government used in relation to a person who,
"failed to produce a passport without giving a reasonable explanation for his failure to do so".
All we ask for in Amendment No. 19 is that the same concept of a reasonable explanation should be applied in the case of persons covered by Clause 1, paragraph 5(4)(c), particularly those entering the country as well as some of the other categories. It seems to me that it is not breaching the Government's policy to suggest the proviso that an asylum seeker should give a reasonable explanation. That is all we ask. If the asylum seeker cannot give a reasonable explanation, then his application would have to be fast-tracked. It seems to be a reasonable proposal.
I wish to deal with some of the other points made. Perhaps I did not make myself clear or the Minister may have misunderstood me. I was not suggesting that a criminal conviction would itself lead to an asylum claim. I suggested that an individual might fear persecution in his or her own country, be stupid enough to commit a criminal offence, be deported or threatened with deportation as a result and lose his or her right to have the asylum claim considered as fully as possible because of the threat of deportation.
I am also aware that people arrive here as visitors and students. However, as we discussed the other day, we may demand visas of a country, the nationals of most countries from which asylum seekers come have to have visas, but it is not possible to enter this country with a visa to become an asylum seeker. With the exception of the Bosnians and the Vietnamese, such visas are not granted by this country. Therefore, as applies to most west European countries, the only way in which an individual can arrive here and seek safety is through obtaining a visa as a visitor or student. Of course, that means applying for a visa on grounds other than those on which the person might wish to seek safety here—namely, as an asylum seeker. It is a catch-22 situation; there is no way out.
Therefore, I argue that an honest individual must do as we discussed last time, he must apply for a visa as a visitor or a student. He may arrive here and say: "Let

1497
me pause for breath, let me seek proper advice as to how to make my asylum claim. First, let me enter the country and then make my asylum claim". That person is then faced with the difficulty that he is in breach of the provision. All we argue is that we should not return to the present position but go part of the way towards the present position. That is all. I contend that Amendment No. 19 is entirely reasonable, as are all the amendments. The words "without reasonable explanation" are surely such that under any fair-minded system in any fair-minded country one would say: "Yes, those are the provisions to which you must adhere. But if you can provide a reasonable explanation, well and good, we will accept it". That is all we ask for in the amendment.
Baroness Blatch: Before the noble Lord decides what he wishes to do about the amendment, I say what he said sounds reasonable, but I invite the Committee to consider this point. It is true that we propose to provide a "reasonable explanation" safeguard in the paragraph dealing with undocumented passengers. The reason we do that is that we accept that there are some circumstances in which an applicant could reach this country without travel documents. But it is more difficult to conceive of a reasonable explanation for a late asylum claim made in the circumstances defined by indent (c). We therefore resist including in the statute a "reasonable explanation" caveat which would unnecessarily complicate appeal hearings. My noble friend Lady Gardner made some relevant points.
The case which we are discussing is where asylum is claimed on the point of removal, following refusal under the 1971 Act, when the case has been heard, on the point of notification of deportation under Section 3(5) of the Act and on the point of notification of removal under paragraph 9 of Schedule 2 to the Act. Those provisions are commonly abused and we have evidence of the extent of that abuse. Given that the asylum applications will he given substantive consideration and an appeal under the accelerated procedure, we think it reasonable to address that form of abuse in this way. I hope that the Committee will not accept the amendment.
Lord Dubs: I am disappointed. Perhaps I may restate the proposition. All we argue is that the words "without reasonable explanation" should be added. If the individual concerned cannot produce a reasonable explanation, then the provisions of the Bill would apply. That is, the fast-track procedure. The individual may be able to produce a reasonable explanation such as where a mother and baby arrive at the airport and the baby is tired or ill. Would anyone wish to go through the complications of claiming asylum then at the airport? Most people who arrive seeking asylum speak little or no English. When I have travelled to distant countries where I do not understand a word of the language, after a lengthy flight and arriving for legitimate tourist or business purposes, I find it difficult to deal with immigration procedures. I may not observe all the notices on the walls.
I suggest to the Committee that it is normal human behaviour that after a long flight one may be confused and have good reason not to make a claim on arrival. If
1498
such good reason can be demonstrated under the wording "without reasonable explanation", all well and good. That is all we seek. It is a reasonable request and a modest amendment.
Baroness Blatch: It is necessary to respond again to the reason that the noble Lord has given. It again sounds reasonable.
We are referring to the difference between practice and administration, and being humane in the way in which people are refused entry, deported and handled. The noble Lord makes a real point. However, let me give a reason that I believe will attract the Committee. There may be an uprising in the country to which we would be sending someone, and we believe that there are good reasons for considering an asylum application in those cases. We are discussing putting a provision on the face of the Bill giving everyone the opportunity to exercise delay of the procedure. In practice, if a convincing explanation were provided, we would not certify. It would be only in exceptional circumstances that we would not certify—for example, where the claim is based on a coup which post-dates the start of the enforcement action. The main disadvantage of a reasonable explanation proviso is that it would dent the deterrent impact of the late claims provision.
If noble Lords do not wish to rid the Bill of this abuse, they will seek to test the opinion of the House. However, this is an abuse; and in practice the Government are totally cognizant of the examples that the noble Lord gave. Such cases would be handled in a perfectly appropriate and humane way.
4.30 p.m.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: Perhaps I may ask the noble Lord for an explanation on a point he made. He stated that in applying for a visa people would not be willing to disclose the reason. They may well have to apply for a student or a visitor visa. Does he mean that that would be an acceptable explanation: that one applies for a visa under false pretences so that one can then apply for asylum?
Lord Dubs: Perhaps I may deal with the noble Baroness's question first. I simply reminded the Committee of the basis on which visas are issued, the reasons for which they are issued and the difficulties facing someone who is in fear of persecution in his own country and as regards how he gains a visa to enter this country or to many Western European countries. I simply said that the main way to gain a visa is to apply as a visitor or a student. That is the way in which asylum seekers enter a safe country; otherwise they have no reason for making the journey.
I do not say that that in itself is a reason for exempting those applicants from the provisions of the Bill as drafted. I simply suggest that there may be other reasons known to the individuals, personal to them, which would represent a reasonable explanation. After all, they still have to have their case considered. They still have to demonstrate their case under the 1951 Geneva Convention. That is quite reasonable. I do not want them to be "fast tracked" in such a way as to lose such rights as they may have.

1499
I turn now to the point that the Minister made. I think that she was suggesting a small concession. However, I contend that it is too small.
Baroness Blatch: I was not suggesting a concession. I was explaining how the procedure works in practice. If there are good reasons why applicants should not be deported, if there are good reasons why they should be given the formal track rather than the fast track procedure, in practice that is exactly what happens. We are against putting on the face of the Bill a right that a reasonable explanation would have to be considered, which would delay the process. Because this is such an area of abuse, we believe that the genuine cases are caught by the way in which we operate in practice. What the noble Lord is insisting should go on the face of the Bill is tantamount to a licence to delay and thwart deportation in genuine cases.
We are talking here of people claiming asylum on the point of deportation, on the point of removal. That is what we say is the abuse. That is what is addressed by the Bill.
Earl Russell: Before the noble Baroness sits down, can she tell us how she knows that it is an abuse before she has heard the evidence?
Baroness Blatch: There is a great deal of recorded evidence of people who have sought asylum on the very point of removal. Students come with permission to stay, and at the end of their course they have to be returned. At the point of returning they seek asylum. Others come for other reasons, overstay, and at the point of removal they suddenly seek asylum. There are those who have been through the 1971 Act immigration procedures and at the point of refusal, where they are deemed to be removed, they then seek asylum. That is the point of abuse, and it is well catalogued.
Earl Russell: But how does the noble Baroness know, before examining the evidence, that that case before her, which is individual, is in point? Perhaps I may remind her of a remark once made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner: that a man apparently lying dead drunk in a gutter may in fact be a diabetic who has run out of insulin.
Baroness Blatch: I can answer that question too. Let me take the example that I gave of the student who completes a course. He is due to return to another country. He refuses to go at the point of deportation and seeks asylum. The proposition in the Bill is that he should be put through the accelerated procedure. The adjudicator hears the case. If in the case put to the adjudicator there is good reason why he should not have received a certificate in the first place, the adjudicator could set the certificate aside. All I am saying is that those applicants will have their case heard. They will have an appeal right. Therefore, if they have good reason, it will be put before the adjudicator.
Lord Avebury: In that case, will the noble Baroness agree to an amendment, tabled perhaps at Report stage, to sub-paragraph (6) which would make it plain that the adjudicator has the power to set the procedure aside? Sub-paragraph (6) states that,
1500
"If…the…adjudicator agrees that the claim is one to which sub-paragraph (2)(3) or (4) applies … section 20(1) shall not confer on the appellant any right to appeal to the Immigration Appeal Tribunal".
The provision does not state that the adjudicator has the power to set that matter aside.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: Perhaps I may suggest to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, that this is not a matter of histrionics. It is a matter of a reasoned administration to seek to curtail manifest abuse, on which all parties, all Members of the Committee, would be in agreement. When the noble Earl says that we are pre-empting, prejudging the situation, with respect, is that quite fair? It is the entrant who applies after entry who, by a much delayed judgment, then seeks this accommodation. The noble Earl does not seem to appreciate that we are not seeking to stop or in any way impede genuine asylum seekers. But, broadly speaking, something has to be done to stop what has become a manifest abuse.
Baroness Blatch: My noble friend is right. We know that there are cases of abuse because they are all denied asylum and the decision on appeal has been upheld.
Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, that we do examine the evidence. If the evidence supports the application for asylum, asylum is granted. I have given that assurance to the Committee. All we are saying is that Clause 1, the fast track, comes into play only after that decision has been made—in other words, if the view of the substantive consideration and the appeal is that this is not a case for asylum. It is only that point of the procedure that we are discussing. I simply say that it is not an arbitrary or a cursory examination. The case is properly heard.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: I certainly do not want to delay the Committee further. The noble Baroness made the point that there is a real case and I understand that. However, I wonder whether she will consider, possibly on Report, examining further the remarks of my noble friend Lord Avebury, in this sense only. If sub-paragraph (6) in Clause 1 goes through and the further appeal stage is removed, the concern expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, and others is simply whether, if circumstances have so far changed, we can be assured that, if the asylum seeker advances a reasonable case—in the sections to which she referred most will not, but there may be exceptions—there is an opportunity for such exceptions to be considered.
Baroness Blatch: I have given the Committee an assurance that if there are good grounds for an application to be considered on the normal track rather than the fast track, in practice that is exactly what will happen. What I cannot do is accede to the amendments. We know that this is an area of abuse. In regard to the accelerated appeals procedure, taking all the Opposition amendments together, including removing Clause 1, it is clear that they do not wish to address some of the worst excesses of the system. Amendments have been tabled to remove Clause 1; amendments have been tabled to remove various parts of Clause 1. I am taking all the amendments together.

1501
We believe that these measures are necessary. There is a particular need for an accelerated procedure. It allows substantive consideration of each case and there is an appeals system. (Those on the normal track then go on to a third stage, a tribunal.) Even at the substantive stage it is possible to decide that the application should go by the normal track rather than the fast track. The case worker makes the decision as to whether Clause 1 is invoked.
We believe the measures are right: first, to address the volume of applicants; secondly, to address abuse; thirdly, for good race relations in this country; and to give proper, and speedier, consideration to genuine asylum seekers. Those are the reasons for including them in the Bill. We know that noble Lords opposite do not wish even to see Clause 1 remain. We believe it is an important part of the Bill.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: We cannot let that pass. If we accept the argument that the Minister has just made, there is no point at all in having this House as a revising Chamber. As a revising Chamber, we examine every single part of each clause of a Bill and consider whether we can make helpful amendments. We have a fallback position whereby we can say that if we have not persuaded the House (or Committee) of the justice of individual amendments, we will seek a debate and possibly even a Division on the issue of whether the clause shall stand part. But the Minister cannot simply add together all the amendments on a clause and the debate on clause stand part and say that, taken together, they all add up to root-and-branch opposition to the Bill. That is not the case. The position of the Opposition is, and always has been, that we examine the text of a Bill, treating each part individually and carefully, place by place, and make each argument at the appropriate time. I protest against the attitude that the Minister is now taking to the role of the Opposition and to this House as a revising Chamber.
Earl Russell: I also protest against the Minister's attempt to foist upon us her belief that this Bill does anything to remedy abuses.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I return briefly to Amendments Nos. 18, 19 and 20. Nobody condones abuse of the system. The Minister gave examples where the Government would, as it were, try to meet particularly difficult circumstances—for example, if there had been a coup in the country from which an asylum seeker came. Such examples are not on the face of the Bill. There may be concessions that the Secretary of State might make in individual cases, but they are not on the face of the Bill. When we are talking about the rights of individuals, it is proper that those rights should be stated on the face of the legislation.
The rights of individual asylum seekers not to be sent back to face possible torture, imprisonment and death are absolutely paramount. The reason we are concerned with the procedures that determine whether an individual is to be sent back is that they may determine life or death for that individual. I know from my time at the Refugee Council of instances of persons being returned to countries where there was turmoil and
1502
persecution, and those individuals were never heard of again. That is why the rights of each individual are so important. The words "without reasonable explanation" which we seek to add to the Bill surely represent the minimum that we could say on behalf of the rights of individuals. It is a minimum additional protection which I contend is reasonable.
I should like to test the opinion of the House on Amendment No. 19. I therefore beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 18.
Amendment No. 18, as an amendment to Amendment No. 1, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 1, Amendment No. 19:
Line 31, after ("made") insert ("without reasonable explanation").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move.
4.46 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 19, as an amendment to Amendment No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 112; Not-Contents, 170.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B. [Teller]

Addington, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Grey, E.

Avebury, L.

Halsbury, E.

Barnett, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Birik, B.

Haskel, L.

Blackstone, B.

Hayman, B.

Borrie, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Bristol, Bp.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Broadbridge, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Howell, L.

Canterbury, Abp.

Howie of Troon, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Hughes, L.

Carter, L.

Hylton, L.

Chester, Bp.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Chichester, Bp.

Jeger, B.

Chorley, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Crook, L.

Lincoln, Bp.

Cudlipp, L.

Lockwood, B.

David, B.

Longford, E.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Desai, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Diamond, L

McNair, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Donoughue, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Mayhew, L.

Dubs, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Ewing of Kirkford, L

Milner of Leeds, L.

Falkender, B.

Molloy, L.

Falkland, V.

Monkswell, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Morris of Kenwood, L.

Fitt, L.

Nicol, B.

Gallacher, L.

Ogmore, L.

Geraint, L.

Palmer, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Peston, L.

Glenamara, L.

Richard, L.

1503

Ripon, Bp.

Stedman, B.

Robertson of Oakridge, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Rochester, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Thurlow, L.

Runcie, L.

Tope, L.

Russell, E [Teller.]

Tordoff, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Sandwich, E.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Seear, B.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

White, B.

Serota, B.

Wigoder, L.

Sewel, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Shepherd, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Stallard, L.

Winston, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Elton, L.

Abinger, L.

Erne, E.

Ackner, L.

Exmouth,V.

Addison, V.

Finsberg, L.

Ailsa, M.

Forbes, L.

Aldington, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Gainford, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Gainsborough, E.

Ampthill, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L.

Geddes, L.

Arran, E.

Gisborough, L.

Balfour, E.

Goold, L.

Barber of Tewkesbury, L.

Goschen, V.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Blake, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Blaker, L.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Blatch, B.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Boardman, L.

Hardwicke, E.

Bowness, L.

Harmsworth, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Henley, L.

Brentford, V.

HolmPatrick, L.

Bridge of Harwich, L.

Hothfield, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Howe, E.

Burnham, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Butterfield, L.

Inchyra, L.

Butterworth, L.

Inglewood, L.

Cadman, L.

Ingrow, L.

Caithness, E.

Kenilworth, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Kimball, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Kingsland, L.

Carnarvon, E.

Kitchener, E.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Knollys, V.

Carnock, L.

Knutsford, V.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Chelmsford, V.

Lindsay, E.

Chesham, L. [Teller.]

Lindsey and Abingdon, E

Clanwilliam, E.

Liverpool, E.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Long, V.

Courtown, E.

Lucas, L.

Cranborne, V. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Crawshaw, L.

Lytton, E.

Crickhowell, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Cumberlege, B.

McConnell, L.

De L'Isle, V.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Deedes, L.

Demon of Wakefield, B.

Mackay of Drumadoon, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Marlesford, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Donegall, M.

Merrivale, L.

Dundonald, E.

Mersey, V.

Eden of Winton, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Elibank, L.

Milverton, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Elles, B.

Montgomery of Alamein, V

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Mottistone, L.

1504

Mountevans, L.

Sainsbury of Preston Candover, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Munster, E.

Sandford, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Seccombe, B.

Newall, L.

Sharples, B.

Norrie, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Northesk, E.

Sherfield, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Shrewsbury, E.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Stewartby, L.

Orkney, E.

Stockton, E.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Strange, B.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Strathcarron, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]

Peel, E.

Sudeley, L.

Swinfen, L.

Pender, L.

Tebbit, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Teynham, L.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Trumpington, B.

Prentice, L.

Ullswater, V.

Quinton, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Westbury, L.

Rawlings, B.

Whitelaw, V.

Rees, L.

Wilberforce, L.

Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L.

Wise, L.

Renton, L.

Wolfson, L.

Renwick, L.

Wynford, L.

Romney, E.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.55 p.m.
[Amendments Nos. 20 and 21, as amendments to Amendment No. 1, not moved.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 1, Amendment No. 22:
Line 42, leave out ("is") and insert ("has been certified by an Adjudicator to be").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 24. When dealing with these amendments, it is necessary to say a word about the history of appeals to the Immigration Appeal Tribunal. Until the 1993 Act, there could be a further appeal to the Immigration Appeal Tribunal if there had been an error in law.
Let me remind those who do not remember the passage of that Act that it had two effects. First, it denied that further right of appeal to cases which were, in the words of the Act, "without foundation". But, at the same time, if the Home Office lost a case which was deemed to be without foundation, it allowed the Home Office still the right to appeal. In other words, the abolition of the right to appeal in certain respects was one sided in that the abolition applied only to applicants—appellants—and not to the Secretary of State. Not surprisingly, the result was an increase in the number of judicial reviews, which I am sure the Committee will agree is, in itself, whatever the reason, undesirable.
What is now proposed in the Bill is that a much wider range of fast-track applicants—those defined in sub-paragraphs (2), (3) and (4) in new Clause 1—under the terms of sub-paragraph (6) should be denied the right to appeal to the Immigration Appeal Tribunal.

1505
I want to suggest to the Committee that because that is so much wider a basis of exclusion and because still the Secretary of State will not lose that right of appeal, it would be wrong to extend the provisions as widely as is proposed in sub-paragraphs (2), (3) and (4).
Therefore, the effect of Amendment No. 22 is to say that what are said to be "frivolous or vexatious" claims should have to be certified as such by the adjudicator. Amendment No. 24 ensures that the right of appeal to the Immigration Appeal Tribunal should apply, except to cases which have been certified by an adjudicator to be "frivolous or vexatious". In other words, we go very closely back to the position under the 1993 Act so far as that aspect is concerned.
The arguments for changing the position from the 1993 Act have been made in public by Ministers and were rehearsed in detail during the earlier stages of the Bill in another place. As we know, the fast track procedure is to apply to applicants from countries on the designated list, applicants under sub-paragraph (3) who fail the different passport tests and applicants under sub-paragraph (4) who fail a whole range of tests, including the test of being "manifestly fraudulent" or the test of being "frivolous or vexatious".
What difference does this aspect of the clause make? It is not just a matter of the appeal to the Immigration Appeal Tribunal; it is also a matter of the time allowed for the grounds of appeal to be stated, which is reduced to five working days. We know from the evidence of applications in recent months and years that a high proportion of cases which come to the special adjudicators would fall within the widened provisions of Clause 1. Indeed, until now there has been the provision that the Immigration Appeal Tribunal would allow a reference back to an adjudicator for rehearing and that 70 per cent. of Immigration Appeal Tribunal cases in 1994 made a reference back in that way.
Clearly the Immigration Appeal Tribunal has a significant effect. It has been referring cases back for further hearing; it has been indicating that the processes of the original application and of the appeal are defective in a significant number of cases and therefore that the work of the tribunal is of considerable importance in assuring justice in the consideration of asylum applications.
Therefore, if the Immigration Appeal Tribunal does a good job—as is shown by the facts—and if the effect of that is to reduce drastically the number of people who can avail themselves of the service of the tribunal, something must be wrong somewhere. It must be the case that a considerable number of people who would, if their appeals were heard by the Immigration Appeal Tribunal, have their cases referred back and eventually, in a significant number of cases presumably, gain admission and refugee status or exceptional leave to remain, will no longer be able to do so. For that reason in these two amendments it is necessary to attempt to restrict the denial of access to the Immigration Appeal Tribunal to those cases which are frivolous and vexatious and which have been certified as such by the adjudicator. I beg to move.
5 p.m.
Earl Russell: We are all wrong sometimes. I remember particularly one occasion when I rose in this Chamber and started speaking with great impassioned eloquence to the wrong amendment. I was rescued expeditiously and effectively by my noble friend Lady Williams of Crosby.
The fact that we can all make mistakes is the fundamental ground of the right of appeal. It is especially true in matters of law, and immigration law is extremely complex. It is in a state of perpetual Heraclitean flux. The possibility of error is always there.
One of the crucial roles of the Immigration Appeal Tribunal is to correct errors on points of law. In 1994 it corrected 270 appeals against the special adjudicator's dismissal of an asylum appeal; 200 of those were either allowed or remitted back for rehearing. That is to say, the tribunal corrected 200 errors of law in one year. That is a lot of errors of law. In a precedent-based system, an uncorrected error of law is capable of having a multiplying effect and affecting the determination of many subsequent cases. The keeping up of a body of case law in an area of this magnitude is extremely important. If there were no other reason, that would be a good reason for accepting the amendment.
It is important also not to be too certain that one is right at the first hearing of a case. I recommend to the Government the spirit shown in the case of a puisne judge whose children observed case after case of champagne being brought into the house. They said, "Mummy, what is all that for?" She replied, "Daddy has been upheld in the appeal court". That is the sort of surprise we should all be humble enough to feel.
Baroness Blatch: This is another amendment designed completely to emasculate Clause 1.
Under the special appeal procedure, the Secretary of State can issue a certificate if, having considered the claim, he considers it to be without foundation. The certificate has two effects: first, the applicant has less time in which to give notice of his appeal, and the appeal must be heard quickly; secondly, the appellant cannot seek leave to appeal to the Immigration Appeal Tribunal unless the adjudicator overturns the certificate. Clause 1 does not change the nature of the special appeal procedure, but makes it available in a wider range of cases where the application is considered to be manifestly unfounded.
The effect of Amendment No. 24 to sub-paragraph (6) would be to restore access to the tribunal in almost all certified cases. The tribunal would be excluded only in cases which satisfied the test of being frivolous or vexatious—a criterion which case law has restricted to a very small number of claims, such as those which merely repeat earlier claims or which make no reference to asylum.
Denial of access to the tribunal is an important part of the benefit which the appeal system derives from the accelerated procedure. It reduces the number of applications for leave to appeal which the tribunal is required to consider. It means that the applicant has exhausted his appeal after the adjudication and can be removed immediately, rather than after a further delay

1507
while an application is made for leave to appeal to the tribunal. And it contributes to the overall signal which the Bill sends to would-be asylum seekers that manifestly unfounded claims will be dealt with robustly.
I do not accept the argument that access to the tribunal should always be a possibility as a long-stop safeguard. I remind the Committee of the safeguards that the Bill will leave in place for cases covered by Clause 1. First, asylum claims cannot be certified until after they have been considered substantively in the normal way. All applicants are invited to an interview, and all are given an opportunity to make additional representations afterwards. All claims will still be considered substantively and granted asylum or exceptional leave to remain where warranted. Those refused will still receive a letter setting out the reasons for refusal. And all will still have an appeal to an adjudicator.
Adjudicators are of course experienced members of the legal profession appointed by the Lord Chancellor and wholly independent of the Home Office. Furthermore, if the adjudicator upholds the refusal of asylum but does not agree that the certificate was correctly issued, he can overturn it and thereby restore the appellant's opportunity to seek leave to appeal to the tribunal. This is what would happen, for example, if the adjudicator agreed that the asylum claim was unfounded but did not agree with the Secretary of State's certificate asserting that the claim was manifestly fraudulent.
There seems little point in having an accelerated appeal procedure if we are not even prepared to reduce the normal three-tier system of consideration by the Secretary of State, the adjudicator and the tribunal to a two-tier one. I should also say that Amendment No. 22 is defective. It would require the Secretary of State to certify in advance of the appeal that in his opinion the adjudicator has certified that the claim is frivolous or vexatious. That is obviously nonsensical, since the Secretary of State cannot attest to an appeal determination which has not yet taken place.
It has been argued that most of the tribunal's determinations result in remittal to the adjudicator for a rehearing so that errors can be corrected. It was suggested also that removing access to the tribunal will result in such errors going uncorrected. Concern was expressed that the Bill will result in the loss of the tribunal's role in maintaining the quality of asylum case law. Those concerns are greatly exaggerated. The majority of applications to the tribunal result either in leave to appeal being refused or in the appeal being dismissed after a hearing. A small proportion result in the case being remitted back to an adjudicator, but in our experience the great majority of such remittals result in the refusal of asylum being upheld. Only a tiny proportion result in an appeal being allowed by the tribunal. In those circumstances, I hope the noble Lord will not press the amendment.
Earl Russell: The noble Baroness might with profit look at the judgment of Mr. Justice Hidden last week in the case of ex parte Bostam. I pay tribute to the work done by the special adjudicators but, inevitably, they
1508
differ from each other from time to time. On the issue of safe third countries, they differ quite substantially. If there is no provision for calling in the Immigration Appeal Tribunal, there could be some trouble in reconciling these variations between people who are of equal status.
I wish to make one other point to the noble Baroness. Before she uses words like "frivolous" and "without foundation" with quite such sublime confidence as she has done today, I would ask her to look over debates in this House in the past few years and at the occasions when she has described arguments from this side of the House as being either without foundation or frivolous and then to ask herself how many of them have subsequently been accepted by Her Majesty's Government.
Baroness Blatch: I take exception to the accusation that the noble Earl has made of me. I was not being light-hearted. The determination as to whether an application is vexatious is not my decision; it is that of the adjudicator. So I hope the noble Earl does not believe I am treating it lightly. I also hope that the noble Earl will agree that vexatious cases should be accelerated. We are saying that, not only for those cases but for those cases that are manifestly unfounded, it is right that an accelerated procedure should be considered.
Earl Russell: I shall willingly and eagerly acquit the noble Baroness of the charge of being light-hearted. I also understood entirely that it was not just her own certainty with which we were dealing. We were dealing with adjudicators. But I do not share the noble Baroness's degree of confidence in every stage of this process. That is where I really would like her to be a little more ready to entertain the possibility that decisions taken within the Home Office machinery may be mistaken. She is very resistant to accepting that possibility—that was all I wish to say—and that is frankly a matter of opinion.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I found the Minister's reply fascinating because not once, but several times, she used the phrase "manifestly unfounded" as being the basis on which the provisions of Clause 1 would come into effect, whereas the words "manifestly unfounded" do not occur anywhere in Clause 1. Under the 1993 Act there was provision for fast-track appeals procedures and for the denial of access to the Immigration Appeal Tribunal for claims which were "unfounded". Ministers—I acquit the Minister in this House of the charge—have since then consistently referred to such claims as bogus. I am glad that the noble Baroness does not do that and has never to my knowledge done so. But "manifestly unfounded" is not what the clause says.
Clause 1 speeds up the appeals procedure and denies the special appeals procedure unless the adjudicator allows it. It applies to those cases which fall under sub-paragraph (2)—about the designated list—sub-paragraph (3)—about passport defects—and sub-paragraph (4)—about the fear of persecution. In reading sub-paragraph (4)(b) I now see the words "manifestly unfounded". I apologise to the Minister for that. But it is only one of a wide range of conditions

1509
under which denial of access to the Immigration Appeal Tribunal applies. The words "manifestly unfounded" refer to a fear of persecution but not to a claim. Therefore, the Minister's defence of Clause 1 does not apply.
As I said, Clause 1 speeds up appeals and restricts access to the Immigration Appeal Tribunal. But what is the Immigration Appeal Tribunal for? It is designed to send cases back to the adjudicator for errors to be corrected. As the noble Earl, Lord Russell, said, there have been a significant number of cases in which it has done so and in which the result has been different from that which would have been the case if there had been no Immigration Appeal Tribunal. That proves the worth of the Immigration Appeal Tribunal and it proves to my mind that it is wrong for it to be emasculated in the way that is proposed in Clause 1.
This issue is very close to one which we have considered on a number of amendments and it is not one on which I wish to seek the opinion of the Committee. However, I have to say that the criticism we have been making is not in the form of a wrecking amendment but of a desire to restore an appeal tribunal which was set up by this Government, which we believe serves a useful purpose, and which is being diminished by the Bill as drafted.
Baroness Blatch: I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. Perhaps I may put the record straight. Before the noble Lord decides what he is going to do with the amendment, I believe I misled the House in saying that it was the adjudicator who determined the accelerated procedure. It is after substantive consideration that a decision as to whether it should be normal track or fast track is taken and then of course it is for the adjudicator to hear the appeal. But it is nevertheless after substantive consideration of the case.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I hope that nothing I have said compounded that error. I hope I was saying that it is the fast-track appeal that we are talking about and not a fast track for the consideration of the original application. On the basis that I have stated, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.15 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 1, Amendment No. 23:
Line 45, at end insert—
("but nothing in those rules may permit any appeal to be determined without the appellant being given the opportunity to present evidence both orally and otherwise").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 23 is of great importance. Its importance has been brought to the forefront by the issue on 31st March and the Lord Chancellor's proposals for comment on procedural rules which would affect the role of the adjudicator and the way in which the adjudicator would consider an appeal. These are not, as I understand it—the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—the procedural rules as such which would apply to the state of law after the Bill has received Royal Assent. I understand them to be
1510
procedural rules which are meant to apply to the situation after the passage of the 1993 Act and the subsequent KPMG report in late 1994 on the operation of the Act. What is significant about the rules issued by the Lord Chancellor's Department is that they consistently refer to the need to avoid delay and reduce cost. They seldom refer to the protection necessary for applicants and appellants. That is why we are worried—we express our worry in the form of this amendment—that it may be the Government's intention to allow appeals to be taken on the papers alone without the possibility of an oral hearing.
All the evidence is that that would be an extremely dangerous procedure. I believe that the Council of Tribunals—I am sorry that my noble and learned friend Lord Archer of Sandwell, who is the chairman of the council, is not available to contribute on this issue today—has been carrying out an analysis of the relative success of matters which come before a tribunal when there is a possibility of an oral hearing as compared with matters which come before one when the matter can be decided on the papers alone. There is a great difference between the two procedures. In other words, there is a much greater likelihood of an appeal being found in favour of the appellant if there is an oral hearing than if there is only a consideration of the papers.
The Bill, as drafted, does not say that an appeal can take place without the possibility of an oral hearing. But all the provisions in the Bill, including, notably, the provisions for out-country appeals in Clauses 2 and 3, lead us to fear that it may be the intention of the Government to allow appeals to be considered on the papers alone. This afternoon we are looking for an assurance that that is not the case and that the Government will indeed do what I believe everyone will accept to be the right thing; namely, to have oral hearings when they are necessary. I beg to move.
Earl Russell: We are always at a disadvantage when we have to discuss a major substantive issue in the absence of some of the crucial documents which show how the policy is going to be applied. It means that we do not know exactly what is going to happen or how it is going to work. Without the procedural rules, I do not see we can properly understand exactly how the appeals are going to work.
We are at a disadvantage here. It is perfectly possible that the noble Baroness is also at a disadvantage. It is not the business of this side of the Committee to be in the habit of regularly giving the Government the benefit of every doubt that arises. It is quite possible that were this document to be made available, some of our fears would prove to be unfounded. One must accept that is a possibility. But one has to go on insisting that as long as they have the power to do something which we believe should not be done, one has to go on raising the issue.
The fear that appeals may be done entirely on the papers is not, so far as I am concerned, without foundation. During the last election, which is now quite a time ago, I took part in a radio programme opposite the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, on the subject of immigration. The noble Lord stated categorically that it

1511
was the Government's intention to introduce a system of hearing appeals purely on the papers. That was a statement made by the then Leader of this House, so it clearly was the Government's intention in 1992.
What is rather curious is that this did not appear in the Asylum and Immigration Act 1993 so, clearly, somebody had had second thoughts. What we do not know now is whether the second thoughts have been superseded by third thoughts. We do not know whether the second thoughts were the result of perhaps perfectly genuine difficulty. When a Government have hesitated so long before bringing in a policy which they have proclaimed during an election campaign, one must wonder whether they had good reason not to do so.
In this case what strikes me as the obvious good reason is that when one is dealing with a claim, practically the first thing that one needs to form an opinion about is the credibility of the claimant. I have not yet found any reliable way of judging the credibility of a person based entirely on paper. Believe me, if one's profession is that of an historian, one has to try to do that daily. There is not any way that it can be done adequately. So if one wants to judge the credibility of an appellant, one has to be able to have an oral hearing. Without that the element of lottery in a decision, which is already there, inevitably must increase and that is something that we could not regard as the prevention of abuse.
Baroness Blatch: I shall ignore the political jibe of the noble Earl, Lord Russell. I wholeheartedly agree with him that establishing the credibility of an appellant is the intention of the system.
Earl Russell: Did I hear the noble Baroness right in saying that I had made a jibe? If so, what was it? I do assure her that that was not in the least my intention.
Baroness Blatch: I believe I heard the noble Earl refer to matters being brought up during political campaigns. If I have misunderstood the point being made by the noble Earl, of course I withdraw the comment that I made.
Earl Russell: All I wanted to say was that the point was made by a spokesman acting for the Conservative Party during a general election campaign. I believe that hearing appeals based only on the papers was then the Government's intention, but what interested me was why they changed it. I was not alleging any impropriety about changing their minds—in fact, I was relieved that they did. I just wondered why they changed their minds back again.
Baroness Blatch: It is my intention to ignore the politics of this amendment and to deal with the amendment before me on the Marshalled List.
Amendment No. 23 proposes changes to subparagraph (5) which would prevent the Lord Chancellor from issuing procedural rules which denied the appellant the opportunity to produce evidence in support of his appeal, both orally and otherwise.
1512
The Government cannot accept the amendment. My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor has recently issued for consultation new draft procedural rules designed to reduce delays and adjournments. Comments have been requested by 20th May and a copy has been made available to this House. Among a number of important improvements to the rules, our proposals include an extension of the existing powers to resolve the case without a hearing. The draft rules would extend the adjudicator's existing discretion to determine the appeal on the papers in certain circumstances.
It is important to put this proposal in context. The Government have been seriously concerned about unnecessary delays and adjournments in the asylum appeals system. The majority of appeals now take longer to determine than the time prescribed in the procedural rules. Part of the problem is that the workload of the appeals system exceeds its capacity. That is why the Government are currently investing substantial sums in additional adjudicators and additional hearing rooms. The number of determinations nearly tripled last year from 2,400 to over 7,000, and a further very major rise in determinations is planned this year.
But an important part of the problem lies in avoidable delays and adjournments. A study by the consultants KPMG, which was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, which the Government commissioned in 1994 and made available to Parliament in February 1995, highlighted the havoc caused to many lists by last-minute adjournments. For example, the consultants found that there is little incentive for appellants and their representatives to co-operate with the Home Office and the appellate authority in moving appeals quickly through the system. They found that by the appeal stage, when it is becoming clear to appellants that their chances of gaining refugee status are very thin, it is in the interests of most to seek to postpone the final decision.
The report went on to say that the lack of incentive to co-operate with the appeal process is supported to some extent by the analysis of adjournments. It has been noted that significant causes are illness, lack of readiness on the part of the appellant's representative and absence of the appellant or his representative. The report went on to say that it was not suggested that all the adjournment requests are not genuine, but that for many such representatives it is not difficult to get at least one adjournment. The concern of adjudicators was also noted at the misuse of doctors' sick notes. The report commented that the Home Office Appellate Authority and judiciary should remain alert to the incentive for appellants and representatives to delay the processing of appeals.
The new procedural rules are designed to address the problems identified by the consultants. My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor has consulted closely senior members of the Immigration Appellate Authority and the Immigration Tribunal, to arrive at a clear and practical set of proposals. They include greater powers for adjudicators to make directions to the parties for the preparation of cases; a presumption against adjournments unless the adjudicator is satisfied that it is necessary for the just disposal of the appeal, and a

1513
stronger presumption against the admission of appeals if notice is not given in time, unless given late, because of circumstances beyond the appellant's control.
Powers to give directions are of no use without sanctions against non-compliance by either party. Therefore, we propose that the adjudicator will be able to proceed without a hearing or to treat the appeal as abandoned, if that is appropriate. In addition, we propose that the existing power to determine the appeal without a hearing may be appropriate in other circumstances. We believe that there may well be cases where it would be both sensible and compatible with justice to proceed in that way. There are cases when, for example, it is plain from the papers that the appellant cannot, or has not tried to dispute the incontrovertible nature of the decision. Where it is plainly unnecessary to hold a hearing, doing so merely adds to the burden on the appeal system.
Perhaps I may stress three points. First, there is already provision for determining appeals without a hearing in certain circumstances. Secondly, we are emphatically not renewing the right to an oral hearing in all certified appeals, as suggested in the Peat Marwick report. All that is proposed is to extend the adjudicator's existing discretion to determine on the papers, if he considers that appropriate in an individual case. It will be entirely up to the adjudicator how far, if at all, he uses such a discretion. We believe that it is an option that should be available to the adjudicator. Thirdly, if an adjudicator uses that discretion unreasonably, the ultimate safety net of judicial review is always available. We do not think that that will happen very often.
We shall, of course, consider carefully all the comments that we receive on the draft new procedural rules, but we cannot agree to Amendment No. 23 as that would foreclose an option that we believe at least deserves to be considered seriously.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: Perhaps I may say just a few words on this, with particular reference to the bizarre statement made by the noble Baroness a few moments ago that my noble friend Lord Russell had made some sort of jibe by referring to a debate that he had had with the noble Lord, Lord Waddington. I am glad that I can get a laugh out of the noble Baroness because it is some little time since I have had the pleasure of watching her smile about anything—no doubt partly because of the unfortunate disclosure of the way in which the crime figures are moving at the moment.
Baroness Blatch: I smile a great deal across the Dispatch Box, but the noble Lord has not been in the Chamber enough to see that.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I do my best to study the features of the noble Baroness because that always gives me great pleasure but, unhappily, not on this occasion.
The Minister dodged answering the specific question from my noble friend about the statement made by the noble Lord, Lord Waddington. The Minister may recall
1514
that the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, happened to hold the office of Home Secretary for a substantial period of time. May I ask her now whether she will reply to the question? On that occasion, the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, said that the Government were contemplating doing precisely what the Government are apparently now doing; namely, saying that in a number of cases the appeals should be carried out solely on the basis of the papers, without the appellant being present. If that was the position of the Government on that occasion and the Government then decided not to proceed, the question that arises is: why did they change their mind on that occasion and why do they appear to have changed their mind yet again? That seems to be an entirely reasonable question and I hope that the Minister will now reply to it.
The noble Baroness sometimes gives the impression that any criticism, however faint, about any action taken by the Home Secretary or any Minister is in some sense a grave breach of our constitution. Let me reassure her: we do not see things in quite that way. The noble Baroness should not be quite so sensitive when even the mildest points are made, as on this occasion.
Baroness Blatch: The noble Lord presses me to say why the decisions have changed. When speaking to the amendment, I said that we had had the benefit of the KPMG report. I also said that what has changed is that the decision and the discretion are given to the adjudicator. We think that that is absolutely right. I also plead in defence the fact that this is a democratic process. As the noble Lord knows, government is a dynamic. We base our thinking on the latest information available to us. The Lord Chancellor has seen fit to put his proposals out for consultation. They are now out for consultation and if the noble Lord is concerned about them, we hope that he will respond. The proposal is that the special adjudicator should be satisfied, having regard to the material before him, the nature of the issues raised, and the extent to which any directions given under rule 23 have been complied with, that the appeal could be so disposed of justly. It is the adjudicator who must make that consideration. It is the judgment of the adjudicator that it should be appropriate. As I have already said, if the adjudicator acted unreasonably, that would be subject to judicial review.
Earl Russell: Perhaps I may say this in clarification: I made no complaint at all about the Government changing their mind. That must happen. I merely wanted to know why they have changed their mind. I did not think that I was raising a major mystery, but I am now beginning to wonder whether I was.
Lord Avebury: I wonder whether the noble Baroness is aware that the draft procedural rules which she said had been issued by the Lord Chancellor are not available in the Printed Paper Office.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Perhaps I may return to Amendment No. 23, to adapt a phrase which I think has been used before. It is entirely legitimate for the Minister to quote from the KPMG report. We quote from reports from time to time when we think that

1515
appropriate. It is, however, somewhat curious that the noble Baroness should quote from that report and then have to admit that the Government have rejected the report's principal conclusion on this issue. After all, the KPMG report said, as I understand it, that all such hearings should be heard on the basis of the papers rather than orally.
My amendment does not propose any such thing. It states that no appeal should be heard on the papers unless the appellant has been,
"given the opportunity to present evidence both orally and otherwise",
and has chosen not to do so. We are not talking about whether all appeals should be on the basis of oral hearings. We are talking about the opportunity for an appellant to seek an oral hearing if he desires to do so. If I caused confusion by the way in which I moved the amendment, I apologise; but I do not think that the contrast between us is as stated by the Minister. I was arguing that there should be an opportunity for an oral hearing. None of the Minister's arguments seems to address that issue—
Baroness Blatch: I think that I precisely addressed that issue. A very real difference between us is that if the amendment is accepted, the decision as to whether there should be an oral hearing would rest with the appellant. The KPMG report extensively catalogues the abuse of that procedure. We believe that it is right that an oral hearing should be considered, but the decision as to whether there should be an oral hearing should belong to the adjudicator, not the appellant.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Then we have correctly identified the difference between us because I certainly take the view that it should be the decision of the applicant for the reasons that I have outlined. Oral hearings produce different results from hearings on the papers and are self-evidently, I should have thought, superior to appeals held purely on the basis of the papers because of the possibilities of cross-examination and of eliminating misunderstandings. I should have thought that that was fundamental not just with regard to tribunals, as the Council on Tribunals recognises, but in all aspects of the law. Where there is conflict of this kind which has to be resolved by judicial or quasi-judicial means, there should be an opportunity for cross-examination and for the matter to be heard in person rather than on the papers alone.
I question whether by these measures the Government will achieve any significant reduction in delays. Surely when issues cannot be resolved on the spot, the adjudicator will seek adjournments in order to solve the discrepancies in the papers. It would be possible to say that an oral hearing should be held at relatively short notice and that there should be a limitation on the time taken for oral hearings. The Minister based her argument heavily on the number of adjournments that are necessary. I suggest that what she proposes—enforced written hearings on the papers alone—will increase the number of adjournments and delays rather than the other way around. The Minister did not seek to provide any evidence—I do not have any—of the
1516
number of cases in which applicants sought oral hearings. It would interesting to find out, if the proposal to have hearings on the papers alone were implemented, how many applications for oral hearings there would be. I suspect that neither of us knows. Therefore, we are not in a position to make a final judgment. Much to my regret, I suspect that what the Government propose will increase delays and injustice. This is a matter to which I am very likely to return at another stage.
Baroness Seear: Can the noble Minister tell us of any other case in which a matter of this importance can be dealt with by any court in this country without the person concerned having the right to appear in person?
Baroness Blatch: I understand that there are occasions when either the chairman of the tribunal or an adjudicator can make a determination without an oral hearing. I cannot give chapter and verse, and I will write to the noble Baroness.
Lord Winston: Surely the crucial issue is Britain's reputation for fairness and justice. Is that not the key to the whole question? It may not be seen to be a just decision if there is no possibility of making representations in person.
Baroness Blatch: I refer yet again to the proposal put out for consultation by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor. He refers to directions given under Rule 23. It is only if the case can be disposed of justly that my noble and learned friend will not have an oral hearing.
I refer again to the KPMG report. Some of the practices that the parties employ to good effect to win adjournments, which are not treated robustly by all adjudicators, include: seeking multiple adjournments, especially in without foundation cases, where the longer the hearing can be delayed the more likely it is that the case will have to be treated substantively; introducing late evidence, even when there has been plenty of time to collect and submit documents, thus forcing an adjournment; and failing to turn up or to produce the appellants on the basis that they will be given a second chance at a later date, because few adjudicators will use their power to determine the matter on the papers. Even if adjudicators go ahead on the papers, the appellant has a fair chance of having the case remitted for an oral hearing by the tribunal. Those are just some of the abuses. We believe it is fair and proper, and should at least be given fair consideration—which is what my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor has done—to submit proposals that say that on the basis of a just disposal the adjudicator should have power to determine the appeal on the basis of papers rather than an oral hearing.
5.45 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I repeat that the Government are not only wrong in principle that oral hearings should be denied despite the wish of the applicant, as my noble friend Lord Winston has pointed out, but it is likely to be counter-productive. When the Minister goes on to quote evidence that has been

1517
adduced in favour of a policy which the Government have not accepted, I am confirmed in my view that it is a matter which deserves further consideration at a later stage, although I will not pursue it into the Division Lobby today.
Baroness Blatch: I have an answer to the question posed by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear. I am told that nearly all judicial review applications are heard without the applicant giving oral evidence.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 23.
Amendment No. 23, as an amendment to Amendment No. 1, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 23A to 28, as amendments to Amendment No. 1, not moved.]
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 1, Amendment No. 29:
Line 62, at end insert—
("() A Special Adjudicator may remit a claim for asylum for reconsideration by the Secretary of State as an alternative to dismissing it where he concludes that the decision rejecting the claim has not been taken in accordance with the law or any relevant rules.").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 29 provides that a special adjudicator may remit a claim for asylum for reconsideration by the Secretary of State as an alternative to dismissing it. Special adjudicators, in particular Judge Pearl in giving evidence to the Glidewell Inquiry, have indicated that this is a very important part of their powers and responsibilities. The 1993 Act allows the adjudicator to refer an issue back to the Home Office where there is a conflict of law or a conflict with the Immigration Rules. In practice, it means that the adjudicator believes that the matter has not been considered properly. As I understand it, that provision will still exist in fast-track cases, although such a referral back will be time limited and there will be a restriction on repeated applications for adjournments. That was a matter to which the Minister referred in her most recent answer. The power given to adjudicators to refer back cases to the Home Office has been widely used. I understand that 26 per cent. of safe third country applications (which we will come to consider in Clause 2) have been referred back in this way.
Further, in his evidence to Glidewell Judge Pearl referred to what would happen if the power to refer back cases was denied. He dealt with that matter again when the case of Dr. al-Mas'ari was referred to him. On that occasion he said that if there were no power to refer the matter back, there was a possibility of the case being left in limbo, and nobody would be able to decide whether Dr. al-Mas'ari, or somebody like him, should be granted refugee status. I suppose that a part answer is that he may be given exceptional-leave-to-remain status. That is what the Government have done, although I understand that it is limited to a period of four years.
Nevertheless, on any view of the role of the special adjudicator it must be possible for him to say, not just that in his view the decision is correct or clearly
1518
incorrect in that the appeal should not be allowed, but that possibly insufficient evidence has been adduced either in the original application or the appeal and the Home Office must look at the case again. I would have thought that that was an open and shut case—which is not the case for appeals themselves—and that it would be right to include the provision as proposed in Amendment No. 29. I beg to move.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: I rise to support the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. I draw attention to one factor upon which he touched. At an earlier stage I withdrew an amendment that would have removed sub-paragraph (6) in Clause 1. That sub-paragraph dealt with the disappearance of the Immigration Appeal Tribunal as a final point of appeal on a matter of law. As I understand it, it will no longer be available to those on the fast track. The amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, would give the special adjudicator the right to return a case to the Home Office on the ground that there might be a misdirection in law. Given the disappearance of the Immigration Appeal Tribunal in these cases, it seems to me to be absolutely vital that it should be possible to mount an appeal on a point of law.
Indeed, it is striking that when in the past special adjudicators have referred cases to the Immigration Appeal Tribunal, in a great majority of those references the adjudicator's case has been upheld by the tribunal. Indeed, according to the Home Office's own statistics for 1995, in 1994 74 per cent. of appeals on a point of law were upheld as a result of a special adjudicator's reference back for rehearing on a point of law.
I feel strongly that unless we are to try to put back the Immigration Appeal Tribunal under Clause 1—I appreciate what the Minister has said about trying to speed up endless procedures—it would be wise of the Government to concede the amendment, which would mean that a point of law could be looked at. That is clearly not something that adjudicators are normally qualified to do, as distinct from the Immigration Appeal Tribunal, or in this case the Home Secretary and his colleagues. I commend the amendment to the Government, and hope that they will consider accepting it.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: The Minister will remember that in a recent meeting we had with the Home Secretary the issue of referral back was raised. My understanding at that time was that there was a disagreement between the noble Baroness and the civil servants over the effect of the Bill. I asked whether the removal of the power to refer back meant that an adjudicator would have to arrive at a decision on the substantive case.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, referred to the possibility of cases being left in limbo. My understanding was that adjudicators would be required to make a decision on the substantive case. If that were to be the situation, the difficulties would be considerable because the adjudicators would not have before them sufficient evidence. An adjournment would be needed. There is a possibility of the system being clogged up

1519
due to that rather than being freed in the way the Government hope. I hope that the Minister may be able to clarify the points being made and answer the question as to whether adjudicators will be required to make a decision on the substantive case in such circumstances.
Lord Avebury: I should have preferred the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, to go a little further in the amendment. As he knows, in the case of Dr. al-Mas'ari, to which he referred, the matter was referred to the Secretary of State by the special adjudicator on two occasions but no decision was taken on the substantive application for asylum. Initially, when Dr. al-Mas'ari came here the proposal was to return him to Yemen, the last country from which he had travelled, because, as the Committee may remember from the previous occasion when we touched upon this case, he was originally imprisoned and persecuted in Saudi Arabia. He escaped across the border to Yemen where he obtained a travel document. He came here from that country.
The first decision that had to be made by the special adjudicator was whether Yemen was a safe country to which to send him back. When the special adjudicator decided that it was not, he made a recommendation to the Secretary of State that he should consider the substantive application for asylum, but the Secretary of State failed to do that, and claimed subsequently to have lost the papers. I will leave it to the Committee's judgment whether to believe that.
When another adjudicator decided on the question of Dr. al-Mas'ari's proposed removal to Dominica, he, too, recommended that the Home Secretary should consider his substantive application for asylum. Instead of that, as the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, pointed out, the Secretary of State, in his wisdom, decided to give him four years' exceptional leave to remain which could be renewed for an indefinite period.
Not only should the special adjudicator's power to remit a claim for asylum be restored by an amendment to Clause 1, the amendment should have provided that in cases where the special adjudicator makes such a reference to the Secretary of State, the latter would have an absolute duty to make a decision on the application for asylum and should not have the power merely to grant exceptional leave to remain or to make some other decision at his own discretion. Surely if we are providing the special adjudicator with these powers, it means that the Secretary of State must do his duty and not slide out of it by the means he has chosen to use.
Baroness Blatch: Perhaps I may say, first, to the right reverend Prelate that I remember the meeting well. It was a useful meeting. It was not a disagreement between myself and the Home Secretary; it was that I got it wrong, and on that occasion the Home Secretary got it right. We have since confirmed in a letter to the right reverend Prelate that his understanding is correct.
1520
The Government believe that adjudicators should in future in all cases either allow or dismiss the appeal. That is where there seems to have been some misunderstanding, as I have listened to the debate on the amendment. Many people are judging the situation as it prevails at the moment and not as it would be if the Bill were on the statute book. The Bill would therefore abolish the option of referral to the Secretary of State which is currently available in certain circumstances because, as I have said, the adjudicator would either allow or dismiss the appeal.
Referral back adds to delay. In effect, the consideration of the case has to start again. Unless he grants asylum, the Secretary of State has to issue another letter setting out his reasons for refusal, and a second appeal then has to take place. That runs counter to the whole thrust of our proposals which are aimed at speeding up the appeal system.
Referral back to the Secretary of State is entirely unnecessary. It has to be remembered that all cases covered by Clause 1 will have been substantively considered by the Secretary of State. It is important to underline that. It is true that Clause 1 will extend the circumstances in which the Secretary of State can issue a certificate if he refuses an asylum claim. But that does not mean that the Secretary of State is excused from the obligation to consider the asylum claim substantively. He cannot issue a certificate until he has done so. So the applicant will still be interviewed. The grounds for his claim will still be assessed. If asylum is refused, the reasons for refusal will still need to be set out in a letter.
It follows, therefore that the adjudicator should have before him the information he requires to decide whether the applicant qualifies for asylum. He will have the interview notes, the Secretary of State's letter of refusal, any additional grounds subsequently submitted with the appeal and the presenting officer's response to those additional grounds at the hearing. In some cases, the grounds for appeal, if introducing significantly new issues, will have elicited a further written response from the Secretary of State. All of that material will be before the adjudicator in Clause 1 cases. If, exceptionally, the adjudicator requires further comment or information from the Secretary of State, it is open to him to adjourn for that to be provided. The Bill will not change that.
It has been suggested that the option of referral back to the Secretary of State is needed to cater for cases where the adjudicator finds that the Secretary of State's initial decision was legally flawed or failed to comply with the Immigration Rules. That argument reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the adjudicator's role. Unlike, for example, the Court of Appeal, his role is not limited to reviewing the validity of the initial decision. And he is not restricted to the information which was available at the time that decision was taken. On the contrary, his task is to form his own view of the validity of the asylum claim, taking account of all available information, including any which has come to light since the initial decision was taken. That is a well-established principle, and it would be damaging to change it now.

1521
So if the adjudicator finds that the initial decision was technically or legally flawed, he should nevertheless go on to form his own view of the validity of the asylum claim and either allow or dismiss the appeal accordingly.
Some may think that cases will be left in limbo if they cannot be referred back to the Secretary of State. There is no such risk. As I have already said, the issue before the adjudicator in all Clause 1 cases will be whether the appellant qualifies for asylum. If the adjudicator allows the appeal, he will be overturning the refusal of asylum. If he dismisses the appeal, he will be upholding the refusal of asylum. Either way, therefore, there will be no question of the case being left in limbo. The third option of referral to the Secretary of State will therefore be unnecessary.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, touched briefly on third country cases. I too hope that we can leave that matter until we discuss it later tonight in the course of considering other amendments. It is quite wrong to suggest that allowing the appeal will leave the case in limbo. If the asylum seeker is still in this country, the asylum claim will automatically be referred back to the Secretary of State. The claim will still be outstanding and the Secretary of State will have to deal with it. In most cases, however, the successful appellant will already have been removed to the third country. Again, I shall deal with that point in more detail when we discuss later amendments.
Reference has been made to Judge Pearl saying that allowing a third country appeal leaves it in limbo. It is difficult to answer because points have been made in the debate. Perhaps Members of the Committee will forgive me if I leave that matter until later. It was mentioned that Judge Pearl told the Glidewell panel that Clause 1 will be counterproductive. What Judge Pearl is reported to have told the Glidewell panel is that the appellate authority's intake currently exceeds its output and that while that remains the position the need to give priority to increased numbers of certified cases will lead to longer waiting lists for other appeals. I know that that view is held by the right reverend Prelate.
We listen carefully to the advice of the chief adjudicator, which is important. He has presided over a very remarkable expansion of capacity and output since his appointment, with the assistance of a major investment of resources which is continuing. However, it is not the Government's position that wider use of the accelerated appeal procedure will of itself reduce overall delays, but we are convinced that it is a necessary part of a wider programme of measures. The package also includes major additional resources now being invested in the appeal system and the improved procedural rules on which my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor has just published proposals after consulting the chief adjudicator.
It is important to send a deterrent signal that unfounded claims will be dealt with speedily. If fewer such claims are thereby made, overall delays will be reduced and genuine refugees will then receive asylum more quickly. I hope that the amendment will not be pressed.
6 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: It is clear where the disagreement lies. None of us is in favour of delay and we shall support proposals which will genuinely reduce delay. However, the danger arises when delay is in conflict with the interests of justice. After listening carefully to the debate I believe that we may have reached the point where there is a conflict between the interests of justice and delay.
I look again at the wording of my amendment and find it somewhat disingenuous. It states:
"A Special Adjudicator may remit a claim for asylum for reconsideration by the Secretary of State as an alternative to dismissing it where he concludes that the decision rejecting the claim has not been taken in accordance with the law or any relevant rules".
I suggest to the Government that it might well be that the alternative will be the case. In other words, a special adjudicator who does not have the power to refer a claim back to the Secretary of State when he considers that it has not been taken in accordance with the law or any relevant rules—that is, that the procedures were improper—may be tempted to say, "I cannot dismiss the claim because, clearly, the procedures were improper, but if I cannot refer it back I shall have to allow the claim". The Government might well find that at the end of this exercise they are getting more successful claimants not necessarily because their claims are justified but as a result of the restrictions placed on the special adjudicator to try to clear up inconsistencies or potential improprieties in the procedures for the claims.
The whole of the Minister's argument was about the substantive consideration of the claim and I accept that that has not changed. She did not refer to the initial appeal and to the fact that the fast-track appeal procedure is bound to involve some risks to the quality of evidence and the quality of consideration. There is not much point in doing so unless one is cutting some corners. She appears to believe that somehow the combination of the substantive application procedure and the fast-track procedure will produce a result which is perfect in all cases and in which there can be no improprieties. That is not a criticism of the immigration department staff or the adjudicators, but surely in human nature errors will be made. I refer to errors of procedure and of consideration of facts, and to all kinds of errors in the procedure which may become apparent to the special adjudicator. I suggest that, as a result of denying the power to refer back, the Minister will find that there will be more successful applications, some of which may not be fully justified.
Baroness Blatch: In all the cases cited by the noble Lord we are suggesting that the adjudicator has the widest possible powers. He does not consider only procedural matters but he has the powers to determine. In order to make a determination he may continue to seek additional information from the Home Secretary, the Home Office and the applicant. He may seek any relevant or additional information that he believes is important to give a judgment either to allow or to dismiss the appeal. His powers allow him either to dismiss or to allow the appeal, and he can continue to

1523
keep a case before him until he is absolutely satisfied that he has taken into account all the information he needs to reach that view.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: There are two answers to that. The first is that if that is the case, it destroys much of the argument about delay. The special adjudicator must call successively for different papers and for responses from the different parties to the appeal to the papers produced by the other side. That is bound to result in a more drawn-out process than a single hearing. Secondly, it is unlikely to be effective. A reconsideration of the case called for by an adjudicator would bring together all the evidence in a way that the adjudicator dealing only with the papers cannot. It might well speed up the appeal.
The amendment does not provide that the adjudicator should not wherever possible determine the appeal. Of course he should. He should either reject or dismiss the appeal whenever he can. However, the most effective way of dealing with a case in respect of which he has a doubt about whether the appeal is justified—a doubt based on the way in which the case was considered before it reached him—in terms of justice and of avoiding delay, would be for the case to be referred back to the Secretary of State for further consideration. Again, as with the previous amendment, we must return to this matter on Report because the Government's position is neither right nor expedient. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment No. 29, as an amendment to Amendment No. 1, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon Baroness Hilton of Eggardon moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 1, Amendment No. 30:
Line 62, at end insert—
("() Nothing in this paragraph shall be construed as applying to a claimant who is, or who appears to be, under 18 years of age, and where the age of the claimant is in doubt or is in dispute the burden shall be on the Secretary of State to demonstrate that the age claimed by the claimant is incorrect.").
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 30, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 45. As previous speakers have said, there has been no dramatic increase in immigration in recent years. Very few immigrants have been unaccompanied children. In 1995 only 486 unaccompanied children aged under 18 made applications for asylum at the ports of this country. A further 99 made application after being admitted to the country.
To subject that handful of children to the fast-track procedure seems particularly mean-spirited. Children as well as adults can be the victims of persecution and torture. For example, in conflicts such as that in Rwanda, where genocide was the main aim of the warring parties, many children die merely because they belong to the wrong tribe. In other countries such as Liberia and Angola, children as young as 12 and 13 may be forced to be soldiers. That is not a good start to life as a responsible citizen.
The United Nations estimates that half the world's refugees are children. Inevitably some of those will arrive unaccompanied on our shores seeking asylum.
1524
The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that children have a full opportunity to present their case for asylum which is unlikely to be possible through the fast-track procedure.
The amendment also places the burden of proof on the Secretary of State to prove that the asylum seeker is over 18 if he has claimed to be a child. Those two provisions need to go together so that the exclusion of children from the fast-track procedure cannot be circumvented by an assumption that they are adults.
The judgment of age is notoriously difficult. My early police experience, which often depended on judging whether somebody was under or over 17 so that he could be sent home or back to approved school, resulted in my endlessly making mistakes as to whether someone was a child or an adult. I learnt rapidly that adolescence is an extremely variable state: boys of 15 may have moustaches and girls with well-developed figures may be only 14; on the other side, pint-sized youths may legally be adults. Therefore, it seems important that immigration officers or other officials should not be able to make a judgment without evidence that the person in question is an adult. If the age of an appellant is at issue at the appeal, lengthy legal arguments as to the young person's real age are likely to ensue. It is essential that a child has legal representation.
It is also possible that the search for documentary evidence may take many weeks. The rules which apply to the interviewing of children make it difficult to arrange or conduct the necessary interviews expeditiously. The complex issues involved therefore make it all the more essential that a child has legal representation; that his rights are protected; and that adjournments may be sought to obtain evidence. For those reasons, it is inappropriate to apply the fast-track procedure to children. It is appropriate to place the burden to prove age on the Secretary of State.
Amendment No. 45 depends on many of the same arguments but it is intended to remove the power to send an unaccompanied child to a third country while awaiting the results of an appeal. Again, it would place the burden of proof to prove that the applicant is an adult on the Secretary of State.
It seems to me that the proposed third country procedure is a denial of justice even to adults, but I believe that it would be barbaric if applied to children. Moreover, it is current government policy not to return a child to a country unless there are adequate arrangements for that child to be met and cared for. That will be far more difficult to fulfil in relation to a so-called third country where presumably a child will have no family or friends. That gives added force to the amendment. In view of those considerations, I beg to move the amendment.
Lord Renton: I would have thought that this amendment, however well intentioned, would cause real problems. The burden of proof should surely lie on whoever has or is most likely to have the necessary information as to the child's age. The Secretary of State will not have that information but the child, the child's parents or anyone escorting him is likely to have it. Therefore, the burden of proof should lie upon the

1525
claimant and not upon the Secretary of State to disprove the matter. That would be an entirely negative burden to place upon the Secretary of State. I really feel that in the public interest, the Government could not accept this amendment.
6.15 p.m.
Baroness David: The point about these amendments is that these children are unaccompanied. There will be no parent or friend with them who can say for sure that they are over 18 or under 18. A child may well come with false documents which perhaps say that he is 18. There must be some way of proving it and the burden of proof should not be on the young person. I know that it is very difficult to prove it and it may need doctors or paediatricians, to give the proof. But I think that it is very hard to take the view that an unaccompanied child is over 18 when he may well not be.
With these amendments we have at last come to amendments about children. It is important that they are recognised as a very special and vulnerable category of people in an excessively difficult position when coming to a country that they do not know and whose language they do not know. We should give them very special consideration.
The Home Office recognises this in a variety of ways. Current Immigration Rules 352 and 353 apply to unaccompanied children. Under those rules, children are not interviewed unless the information cannot be gathered in any other way. If they do have to be interviewed, they must be accompanied by an independent adult and the interview must be conducted sensibly.
The Government have also maintained a policy of not returning a child to a country unless there are adequate arrangements for that child to be met and cared for in that country. It is argued that it would be inconsistent to make all those exceptions in the case of children but not to make an exception in the case of the accelerated appeals process, such as that provided in Clause 1.
As my noble friend said, 357 unaccompanied children who applied for asylum at ports in 1994 were from countries which the Government propose to designate as generally safe.
In correspondence, Miss Widdecombe, from the Home Office, has argued that children can spend the time that they wait for a decision obtaining relevant evidence to use in their appeal. That is only true if the child or his relative can predict accurately the points which the Home Office will use to refuse the asylum application. In most cases, that is not possible, no matter how experienced is the representative. Sometimes it is clear that a particular issue may arise, such as whether a child will be met and appropriately cared for if returned to his country. It is then that the representative can make some inquiries on that matter at an early stage.
However, often there will be a need to refute the specific reasons given by the Home Office. For example, a child may have lost contact with his parents and not know where they are. The representative can take some measures such as contacting the Red Cross family tracing service or writing to the last known
1526
address or workplace of the people concerned. If, however, the Secretary of State alleges, in his refusal reasons, that the FCO staff in the country in question have discovered that the applicant's father is working for a particular firm or is residing at a particular address, the representative will still need time to check that information.
It is simply impossible for any applicant or representative to address every possible point or piece of evidence that the other side may raise in advance. Exemption from the Clause 1 procedure would not mean that the cases of children could not be prioritised by the Immigration Appellate Authority as they are now. They could perfectly feasibly continue under the new system. That would mean that children's cases could be dealt with promptly but without the pressure to dispose of the case within 17 days, which will either disadvantage the child or lead to an adjournment beyond that target.
Therefore, this first amendment will ensure that the particular difficulties of asylum-seeking children are reflected so that their cases are given full consideration. If the Bill proceeds unamended, the cases of children will either not be fully considered or they will clog a system designed to accommodate speedy cases.
I turn to the second amendment in this group, Amendment No. 45, which would mean that unaccompanied refugee children could not be sent to safe third countries, either with or without an in-country right of appeal. As I said in speaking to Amendment No. 30, the Government have maintained a policy of not returning a child to a country unless there are adequate arrangements for the child to he met and cared for in that country. Miss Widdecombe, in a letter to David Alton, has reaffirmed that. The letter states:
"I am also happy to reaffirm that even once a child has exhausted his or her appeal rights, the Immigration Service will not seek to return children abroad until reception and care arrangements in their country are made. These arrangements will also be notified on a case-by-case basis to the relevant authorities responsible in this country for the care of the children".
The uncertainty over possible removal to a safe third country and legal disputes over that possibility will prevent them from doing this. Refugee children may have been sent to the UK because they speak some English or because there is a well-established community from their country here. But such factors are even more important for children travelling alone than for adult asylum seekers, so the effect of removing to a country deemed safe is likely to be very much more disruptive and damaging. I hope that the Minister can take the case of these children very seriously and agree to the amendments.
Lord Renton: Will the noble Baroness be good enough to tell us whether the document from which she quoted at length gives any indication of the practice

1527
which I am sure prevails sometimes of children being sent here intentionally unaccompanied in order to make their remaining here easier?
Baroness David: It is possible that that could happen. However, we must give children the benefit of the doubt and allow them every possible chance to prove their case, rather than assume that they may be in the wrong.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: The amendment is similar to Amendment No. 49 which is tabled in my name. It is similar in that it puts the burden of proof of age on the immigration officials rather than on the child. However, it is different in other regards as my amendment does not refer specifically to Clause 1. When we come to deal with Amendment No. 49, I hope that we shall be able to debate it in full; but it seemed only right that I should speak on the matter of age determination in relation to Amendment No. 30.
The noble Baroness, Lady David, referred to children as being among the most vulnerable of those who seek asylum on our shores. As we know, it is the case that children are frequently those who suffer most from disorder, violence and civil war in their own countries. Indeed, that has been true throughout history from the massacre of the children in the time of King Herod through to Nazi Germany.
I am speaking now specifically about unaccompanied children who arrive in this country. They are in a highly vulnerable state. It is the case that the Home Office gives them particular consideration. In relation to detention, the Minister said that her understanding is that young people under the age of 17 are detained only as a very last resort. Clearly that is right.
However, despite that Home Office intention, it is the case that the Refugee Council has dealt with 54 unaccompanied asylum seekers under the age of 17 who had been detained. The vast majority of them were detained because the immigration service took the view that they were aged over 18. The problem arises because children travel without documents; with documents which do not belong to them; or with documents which state a false age. I believe that we are all aware of the kind of reasons why that might be so.
If a parent in the country of origin is in detention or in hiding, that often means that a child is unable to obtain a passport. One way of doing so is to present that child as being over the age of majority, in which case the passport on which the child travels gives the age as being over 18. That is then taken by the immigration officials as meaning that the child, in claiming to be under that age, is making a false claim. Further, many people are conscripted for military service under the age of 18 and authorities are often reluctant to allow youngsters coming up to that age to leave their country. Therefore, once again, there will be very strong pressure for those who are under 18 to present themselves as being of a different age.
Such disputes are very difficult to resolve. That is why the intention of the amendment—and of Amendment No. 49 standing in my name—is to say that the burden of proof in those circumstances must rest on
1528
the immigration officials. It is possible to obtain medical evidence, but I shall not go into such details because I am not qualified medically to do so. However, I understand that it is possible to have X-rays taken which determine the rate of growth of a particular person and which can give some fairly objective evidence as to whether someone is 17 or 18. Some children have been able to provide other forms of documentary evidence.
All of that indicates that the burden of proof of whether someone is over 18 years of age ought to rest on the immigration officials and not on the children who are making the claim. In the event of dispute, the balance should lie with the person making the claim rather than with those who are rejecting it.
Lord Renton: I trust that the right reverend Prelate will allow me to comment. I listened to what he said very carefully and I thought that he indicated that young people were justified in coming here in order to avoid military service in their own countries. If that is so, are we to treat them as people seeking asylum?
Lord Avebury: I should like to intervene briefly to point out to the right reverend Prelate that the use of X-rays for age determination is deplored by the British Medical Association and has been for the past 20 years since it was the subject of an investigation undertaken in my office. At that time, we submitted evidence to the BMA and to the Government showing that the practice was harmful and inaccurate. If I remember rightly—and it is a long time since the study was published—the average error in the use of X-rays for the purpose of age determination in children was plus or minus two years. Therefore, it would not be much good in deciding the cases that we are discussing this evening which are, by definition, on the borderline between 17 and 18.
Further, the use of X-rays for that purpose could be medically harmful. It was stated that they were not to be used in a procedure that was not clinically necessary for the young person. That is the absolute rule that is now adopted by the medical profession. It is known that X-rays are carcinogenic in however small a dose. Indeed, their use is to be avoided when it is for purposes other than clinical. Therefore, we should be extremely wary of suggesting that any scientific evidence could be brought forward that would help to decide the question of the person's age if that was in doubt.
However, it could perhaps be agreed that a group of paediatricians should be asked to advise and that their word would be acceptable both to the appellant and to the Secretary of State. I suggest a panel of them so that an average view could be taken of the opinions expressed. That would be the best way to sort out what is essentially a very difficult and subjective problem to which there is no absolute answer.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: Perhaps I may just reply to the noble Lord, Lord Renton. Obviously, I did not make myself clear. The difficulty is that if one is, say, aged 17—that is, under the age of conscription—the authorities in a particular country may be very reluctant to allow a child of that age to leave because they may

1529
consider that he is trying to avoid conscription. If there is a genuine reason why such a child should wish to leave, such as the case where a family is being persecuted, it will be very difficult for that child to escape from the country if he presents himself as being aged 17. That is why to do so at an older age, which would indicate that that age of conscription is past, may in fact help such a child to leave his country.
In response to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, I can only repeat that I am no medical authority; indeed, he may be right in what he says. However, my understanding is that X-rays had been used in the process. I was merely using them generally as an example of possible medical evidence.
Lord Hylton: Several Members of the Committee have correctly made the point that we are dealing with a very limited number of children per year. Whatever we may do in accepting or rejecting the amendment is not likely to increase that number significantly. Many of those children come from countries where records are simply not kept; or, indeed, if they are, they may have been destroyed or may not be capable of being found in a reasonable period of time.
For those reasons we should follow the line proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady David, and give the benefit of the doubt to anyone who might be an adult but could possibly claim to be a child. In addition, we should make absolutely certain that the most cast-iron and reliable arrangements for reception in any other country have been made before we even begin to consider sending back a child or possible child.
6.30 p.m.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: I am proud to follow the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, who was right. It is a small number of people whose age is in question: unaccompanied children. They are young people incapable of presenting proof in some cases. As the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, pointed out, in countries like Ghana, where I taught, there are no records, birth certificates or other adequate proof of the age of a child. We know that a number of children have come to this country for whom medical proof suggests that they are under the age of 18. A current case is that of a young man who arrived here in December 1994, aged 15, according to medical advice. In April 1996 he is still in detention on the grounds that he may not be under the age of 18. He has been in and out of detention for 18 months. It seems to me appalling that a child against whom no crime is registered, save coming to this country to seek asylum, should be kept in detention for many months. That is not to the credit of our country.
I recognise that the Home Office has always made an exception for children once they are established as being children. The problem is that in some cases the evidence put forward by distinguished medical men and women has been refuted by the immigration service on the grounds that it does not agree.
One has to ask whether we believe that a burden of proof can be reached, and what it is. Surely it should lie with the Home Office, which has access to all kinds
1530
of expert resources, rather than with one of the most vulnerable people in the world, an unaccompanied child, to prove its age or what it believes to be its age.
I make one other point before we pursue this set of amendments on unaccompanied children. I believe that there is a good deal of evidence to show that children who are below the age of 18 and are returned, if it is held that they are above that age, will return to situations of extreme risk. The right reverend Prelate said that in some countries young children are now being forcibly recruited to serve in the military. Angola is one example, but there are many others. Young children are also forced into prostitution or crime. We are talking of a small number but a large principle.
I conclude by quoting from one of our greatest poets who said in The Merchant of Venice:
"The quality of mercy is not strained,
It droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven".
This amendment above all seems to me to be one where the quality of mercy is appropriate.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: The presentation of the amendment has been confused and, as I listened, I became more and more amazed. The noble Baroness, Lady Hilton, introduced it clearly and I understood what she said. When the noble Lord, Lord Renton, said that he felt it was wrong to place the onus of proof on the Secretary of State, again I fully understood. Then the noble Baroness, Lady David, said how well the Home Office treats children now and how splendid it all is; and it sounded as though there was not much of a problem. The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, said that there are so few children that it is no problem. That may be true now, but if we create a large loophole plenty more children will come on that basis. That is what we must avoid.
It is easy to put one's age up or down. Some years ago I gave advice to a woman who wished to enter the other place that it was best to lower her age. She did just that and, sure enough, she was selected and elected. Her age was dropped 10 years. Age is tricky.
The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, said that we should give the benefit of the doubt—I am not sure that he used that phrase—to someone who might be an adult but could possibly be a child. That definition is unclear and would cause me concern. People have said in one breath that to obtain a passport one must say that one is over 18 and in the next breath that the Home Office is unreasonable when it examines a passport showing someone to be 18 and takes it that that person is 18. It has been suggested that we should place on the Secretary of State the obligation to prove that the person is not 18 when he or she is clutching a passport stating that that person is 18. The amendment is wrong. I oppose it.
Lord Winston: With respect, surely that is going too far. We do not seriously expect floods of children to enter the country as a result of the legislation and it is wrong to suggest that. I support the noble Lord, Lord Hylton. I see adult patients from all over the world,

1531
and with patients from Africa and Asia it is common to find that they do not know when their birthday is. It is a major problem.
With regard to radiography, bone ageing and epiphyseal fusing, which is how the determination of age is carried out, I can say categorically that it is not a good idea to apply a rather invasive medical procedure, which might carry an admittedly slight risk of leukaemia, simply to establish status. That would be a poor principle.
However, there is a bigger problem with regard to the burden of proof of age. We shall see children occasionally entering the country who come from situations where they are refugees and are probably quite poorly nourished. Because of poor nourishment, people's ages may be difficult to determine. Surely, the answer is to be reasonably humane and try to be sensible about the legislation. Unless it becomes a huge problem, with a massive influx—which is unlikely—we should accept that there may have to be vagueness by its nature in determining the age of what appears to be a child. We would have to accept that as a matter of humanity and simple justice.
Earl Russell: I do not believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, has taken on board the difficulty of determining age without records. In early 16th century England, when people took over their land on coming of age, in many cases the witness says that he was born "in the year in which I broke my leg playing football". The trouble is that he does not remember which year that was. One must be realistic about the degree of certainty which can be expected. When the consequences of being disbelieved may be as great as life itself, the burden of proof must be in favour of the applicant. That is the heart of our case.
Lord Dubs: I support the two amendments because one basic principle is at stake. It is that the interests of the child should come first. That is the policy of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and, I understand, of UNICEF.
In my experience when I was director of the Refugee Council, we looked after and I personally met many unaccompanied refugee children or unaccompanied asylum seeking children. One of their characteristics is that they are more traumatised than any other asylum seekers. They are more traumatised because of their youth and often because of the painful and difficult circumstances under which they managed to leave the country where they were in danger. They may also have been traumatised because their parents were dead or had disappeared. Alternatively, they may have been sent to safety by their parents because the parents feared that the children might be conscripted into an army at the age of 13 or 14 and would almost certainly face death. That separation from their parents would have traumatised the children. Young people who have suffered in that way find it harder to speak for themselves. They find it harder than any other asylum seekers to explain what has happened to them and to put up a good case.
1532
The procedures that we apply are particularly thorough. They give the child and his representatives every opportunity to get to the truth of the child's background so that the case can be properly and fairly put.
I do not believe that any government would wish to remove a child from this country to circumstances other than those in the best interests of the child. That requires a thorough and painstaking assessment. I believe that the two amendments go some way towards protecting those interests. I hope that the Government will accept these amendments, or some similar proposals.
Baroness Rawlings: With respect to the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton of Eggardon, I agree that children should be treated with great consideration. Under our Immigration Rules unaccompanied children must receive priority. I am sure that any child who has real cause will be admitted. I do not refer now to the debate as regards age. I refer to Amendment No. 45. Surely the reason that we should reject the amendment is that it leaves a loophole. I am not referring to any bona fide child who comes in. It allows for the possibility—which is not infrequent—of children being used by third parties to allow in subsequent members of their family. This is a serious loophole. I am sure, I repeat, that we would never wish to stop any bona fide children from coming into this country; they would not be stopped from doing so.
Baroness Blatch: This is an important and sensitive issue, and one which concerns us all. I hope that I shall be able to allay the fears of noble Lords about the way in which children who are asylum seekers are handled. I share in all the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, but the real concern is how those cases are handled and managed in this country as part of the system.
Our proposals to extend the accelerated appeal procedure do not change the special arrangements for considering asylum applications from unaccompanied children. Their cases will continue to be given special priority and care, and will, as now, be considered by specially trained caseworkers. The Immigration Rules state that a child will not be interviewed about the substance of his asylum claim if it is possible to obtain sufficient information from other sources. Where it is necessary to interview a child, that is done in the presence of an independent adult. Unaccompanied children, therefore, are not included in the Home Office short procedure which is based around an early asylum interview to obtain the basis of the claim.
They will also continue to have the services of the Panel of Advisers for unaccompanied children to help them in their dealings with the Home Office and other government agencies.
There is no conflict between our careful approach to applications from unaccompanied children and the proposals to extend the special appeals procedures. Applying the accelerated appeals procedures to children is consistent with the UNHCR guidelines which emphasise the need for speedy determination of their status. Indeed, it is for this reason that appeals made by

1533
unaccompanied children already receive priority listing by the Lord Chancellor's Department. If a child has no claim to refugee status, speedy return to his family in their country of origin can only be beneficial. Clause I would assist in this process.
The Government recognise that applications from unaccompanied children raise sensitive issues and for this reason we do not propose to certify particularly complex or compassionate cases. Each case would be considered on its merits. We would take into account the child's particular circumstances. We would take account of his ability to understand his situation and to take responsibility for his actions. It would not be reasonable, for example, to expect a young child to know whether the passport he had been given was valid. But the same might not be true in the case of a young person of 17. It is right that the Secretary of State should make these judgments on the merits of the individual case.
I should like to turn to the second limb of Amendment No. 30 which deals with disputes over the age of an applicant. The Immigration Rules define an asylum-seeking child as,
"a person who is under 18 years of age or who, in the absence of documentary evidence, appears to be under that age".
Where a young person holds a valid passport showing him to be over 18 the onus is quite rightly on him to show that the age in his passport is incorrect. Where an applicant has no documents, the Immigration Service, with the assistance of the port medical officer as appropriate, will make a judgment on the applicant's age. Amendment No. 30 would reverse the current position and require the Secretary of State to demonstrate that a claimed age for which there was no evidence was incorrect.
My noble friend Lord Renton made an important point. These amendments are not just about age disputes. I agree with him when he asks how age can be determined without the relevant information. The important point is as regards the people who have the information. But if the benefit of the doubt is automatically conceded to the child, that creates a loophole. It was referred to by my noble friends Lady Gardner of Parkes and Lady Rawlings.
It cannot be right to allow a person to make an unsubstantiated claim to be a child in order to circumvent normal immigration controls. If there is a dispute over the age of an asylum seeker, it is open to him to provide documentary or medical evidence to support his claim. Where that evidence is satisfactory we will accept the applicant as a minor, as we have done in a number of cases. But it is entirely right that the burden of proof should remain with the applicant.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: I apologise for interrupting the noble Baroness. However, the case that I raised is in direct contradistinction to what she says. The young man currently in detention has two very senior medical consultants arguing that he is not 18. They have argued that for two years. The young man is still in detention and, if they are correct, he cannot even now be 18, having been kept in detention of one form or another for two years.
1534
The noble Baroness gives the Committee assurances to which that case seems to be in complete contradistinction.
Baroness Blatch: I hope that the noble Baroness will hear me out completely before we discuss specific cases. Of course I shall take away a particular case, if the noble Baroness wishes to write to me about it, and ensure that it is properly investigated.
As I said, it cannot be right to make unsubstantiated claims. Where that evidence is satisfactory, we will accept the applicant as a minor, as we have done in a number of cases. But it is entirely right that the burden of proof should remain with the applicant. For the moment, I rest that case, but I shall come back to the issue.
Amendment No. 45 would prevent any child under 18 who claimed asylum in his own right, whether accompanied or unaccompanied, from being removed to a safe third country. The whole debate has been about unaccompanied children. Not a single word has been prayed in aid of accompanied children. This would make it impossible to reunite a child with his own family if the family were in a safe third country. The amendment is in conflict with UNHCR guidance which states that family reunion should be the first priority for a child. I am not aware of any recent case where we have removed an unaccompanied asylum applicant aged under 18 to a safe third country. We would not take such a step unless we had confirmation that suitable reception arrangements were in place in the third country. It is nevertheless right that we should have the option to remove children under 18 to safe third countries in appropriate cases in order to preserve family unity.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hilton, referred to sending children back without suitable arrangements. If we cannot make suitable reception arrangements for children in this category in the third country, we will simply not remove the child. We will only remove the child if those arrangements can be made. But, as I have said, in some cases the parents are already in the third country. In that case, removal to the third country would be entirely appropriate.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hilton, referred exclusively to unaccompanied children, but the amendment covers all children who seek asylum. No case whatever has been made out for exempting accompanied children.
Statistics are important, too. The provisional figures for the last six months of 1995 indicate that cases referred to the unaccompanied children's module came from the following age groups: 38 per cent. claimed to be 17; 29 per cent., 16; 15 per cent., 15; and 18 per cent., 14. Of all the applications, only four were received from children who were 10 or under.
Since January 1995 only two children in total have been returned: one a young man of 17, to Kenya, and a 16 year-old Chinese boy. In the same period, six children made voluntary departures from this country.
It is better for children who have no further basis of stay in the United Kingdom to return home voluntarily, as that is the most comfortable arrangement. We

1535
encourage that option. However, as I said, no child is removed from this country unless we are certain that reception arrangements have been made. Where voluntary departure cannot be agreed, it may be necessary to take steps to enforce the return—as I said, with the necessary arrangements in place. In the past 12 months, only two refusal decisions involving unaccompanied children were overturned by an adjudicator on appeal.
We are not talking about small numbers. Nearly 30 per cent. of asylum seekers last year were recorded as aged between 18 and 24; nearly 60 per cent. were recorded as being under 30. Were we to reverse the burden of proof, we should give many more such applicants an incentive to lie about their age by pretending to be under 18. Cases of that kind have already come to light. As my noble friends Lady Rawlings and Lady Gardner of Parkes said, that would provide a major new loophole for abusive applications, given the very large number of young asylum seeker applications from those who are around the age of 18.
Finally, I turn to an issue that I know concerns everybody in this Chamber and outside it; namely, how we handle unaccompanied child cases. Under the Immigration Rules applications from unaccompanied children must receive priority. Because of their potential vulnerability, particular care is taken in such cases. Their applications are considered against the normal criteria for determining refugee status.
In response to the growing number of applications from unaccompanied children, a specialist unit was established in the Asylum Division in May 1995 to deal with their cases more speedily and consistently—a development that has been widely welcomed. The Government's view is that unaccompanied children whose asylum applications have failed should be returned to the care of their parents in the country of origin. That is wholly in line with the principle of family unity contained in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. General Assembly Resolution No. 49/172 of 1994 reaffirmed the importance of family reunification.
The Government made it clear during the passage of the 1993 Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act that we will not seek to remove a child under 18 unless it is possible to put in place acceptable reception arrangements in the country of origin.
The Immigration Rules state that a child will not be interviewed about the substance of an asylum claim if it is possible to obtain sufficient information from other sources. Where it is necessary to interview a child, we have always said that it will be done in the presence of an adult.
The Government fund a panel of advisers to assist unaccompanied children in their dealings with the Home Office and other central and local government departments. The panel is administered by the Children's Division of the Refugee Council.
1536
Each local authority has a duty under the Children Act to safeguard and promote the welfare of children in need who are within its area. Those duties extend to unaccompanied child asylum seekers and are unaffected by the Bill. The recently introduced benefit changes will also not affect these obligations.
The Red Cross is also used. All unaccompanied children are notified to the British Red Cross Society for inclusion in its register. We encourage use of the Red Cross placing service to re-establish contact with families.
Our present policy is not to remove unaccompanied children to safe third countries unless we have confirmation that suitable reception arrangements are in place in the country concerned. We are not aware of any recent cases where unaccompanied children have been removed to a safe third country.
If the concern of the Committee is the handling and management of such children, the Government meet that in every sense. If the concern is about making sure that children are considered fairly, and speedily where it is appropriate, the Government meet that too.
I hope that the Committee will agree that if we simply concede to this amendment, first, it is far more encompassing than the noble Baroness, Lady Hilton, has accepted, and we should create a loophole which would take us two steps back from where we want to be with this Bill. Understanding the needs of children is central to the Government's concerns in this matter.
Baroness Hilton of Eggardon: I am grateful for the tone and detail of the Minister's response. We need to examine her remarks with considerable closeness. I am not convinced that expedition and speed in dealing with children necessarily produce justice. We shall therefore return on Report very much to the exclusion of children from the fast-track procedure. Although they may be treated as priority cases and the intention may be to return them with expedition and speed to their families, it may in fact deny them the justice that they should receive. We shall therefore return to this point on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment No. 30, as an amendment to Amendment No. 1, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 1, as amended, agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I stayed silent on the Question that Amendment No. 1, as amended, be agreed to. Had we succeeded in overturning that, we should have lost the amendment that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Liverpool successfully moved last week. However, I want to oppose the Question that Clause 1 stand part of the Bill. I do so for entirely constructive reasons.
Let me be quite clear from the outset. This is not a wrecking amendment. There is a law, introduced only three years ago, for deciding on what basis asylum appeals shall be considered. It includes the provision for a fast-track procedure for unfounded applications and some restriction on access to the Immigration Appeal

1537
Tribunal. My first point is therefore that there is a law; and it is one that the Government have to prove needs changing before we agree to any change.
The second point to be made is that the provisions in this clause, as in Clauses 2 and 3, are entirely voluntary for the Secretary of State. All the provisions in Clause 1 apply, in accordance with line 8 of the clause as agreed, only,
"if the Secretary of State has certified that, in his opinion",
and so on.
On a number of occasions in dealing with individual amendments, the Minister made it clear that the Secretary of State will not act in accordance with the strict provisions of the Bill but will "temper the wind to the shorn lamb". We welcome all the assurances that were made. However, they are not on the face of the Bill. What is on the face of the Bill is that Clause 1 is optional; it need be applied only if the Secretary of State chooses to implement the certification procedure. That means that a Labour Government will not have to repeal the provision; they will simply not have to certify any claim.
I do not wish to go over the broader issues raised at Second Reading about alternative ways of dealing with the increase in the number of applications. (I see from the clock that I have already been speaking for 50 minutes!) Briefly, the Government's figures about unfounded applications are very far from being the truth.
The term, "without foundation", applies under the 1993 Act to a claim rather than to the application itself. A claim may be unfounded; it may be inadequate in the evidence it produces. That does not mean that the application itself is unfounded or that the applicant should not be granted refugee status. But, even so, the Government continue to say that only 5 per cent. of those who apply are recognised as refugees and neglect to say that, because 18 per cent. are given exceptional leave to remain, 23 per cent. in effect have some validity either for refugee status or for exceptional leave to remain.
We know from surveys that have been carried out by the Asylum Rights Campaign that where adjudicators have been involved, they have said that, even though only 5 per cent. are accepted as refugees, nevertheless 35 per cent. of the cases which they deal with are indeed at risk. The Government laid some stress on the change in the refusal rates, which have gone down. This is not because there has been any increase in bogus applications but because there has been a drastic reduction in the number of grants of exceptional leave to remain.
Not in any sense by opposing Clause 1 do we wish to deny the right of and the duty on the Government to examine carefully and strictly applications for asylum and make sure that there is a proper distinction between applications for economic asylum and those which are based on persecution under the 1951 convention. But having attempted in detail to correct the many anomalies and deficiencies in the clause, we are not satisfied with the clause as it stands.
1538
Of course, there has been a significant change made in the clause with the addition of the criterion of torture, introduced by the right reverend Prelates and other noble Lords. We welcome that change and would not wish it to be lost. On the other hand, if the Committee decides not to allow the clause to stand part of the Bill, the evil which that amendment seeks to remedy will no longer be there and there is no need for that amendment. For that reason, I hope that the Lords Spiritual, whom I am glad to see in some number in the Chamber, will feel able to support the Motion that Clause 1 should not stand part of the Bill. They do not lose anything of the victory that they and we all gained last week as a result of that amendment.
As always, the onus is on the Government to show what has changed so dramatically since 1993. I believe that no case has been made in the course of our long and detailed consideration of the detail of the clause and that it would be proper for the clause to be removed from the Bill. I beg to move that Clause 1 do not stand part of the Bill.
7 p.m.
Earl Russell: I must congratulate the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, on his eloquence. That was quite the shortest 50-minute speech to which I have ever listened. I found it very refreshing.
I have listened with as much care as I can to nearly two days of debate about the proposed Clause 1. I cannot say that I am in the least bit reassured. Every now and then, when working very late at night, one's mind makes a little leap. Late at night, I was reading for the 150th time the words "fast track" and, catching sight of the number of the clause, I found myself thinking of "Formula 1" appeals. That, it is well known, is a somewhat risky form of transport. I do not feel that it is inappropriate to the provisions of this clause. There is a great deal in the maxim, "More haste, less speed".
I am sure that anyone who has ever handled an immigration case will agree that a great deal of time is taken in trying to meet impossible deadlines and, because they are impossible, the work has to be done all over again. That has certainly been my experience. Moveover, it is what Judge Pearl, giving evidence to the Glidewell panel said in his opinion would be the effect of the clause. I take his judgment on the matter a very great deal more seriously than mine.
Last Tuesday, when I said that being subjected to the fast track procedure was, in effect, a penalty, I noticed that the noble Baroness shook her head vigorously. Yet, later that evening, she said that the fast track would affect those who seek to frustrate our asylum procedures but that those:
"who are honest … will not be adversely affected".—[Official Report, 24/4/96; col. 1120.]
I took that remark as an admission that, being subjected to the fast-track procedure is, in effect, being adversely affected. So I understand it.
One of the new elements about the fast-track procedure compared with that introduced in 1993 is that it will not consider merely whether the appeal is without foundation. If it is found to be with foundation, it cannot

1539
be referred back. The substance has to be considered. If evidence is needed from foreign countries, it can be a very time-consuming procedure. I have great difficulty in believing that justice can be adequately done.
With regard to the designated list, my noble friend Lord Avebury did the House a great service with the amount of detail that he brought out about the countries selected for designation. My noble friend Lady Seear summed it all up. She said: "If these are the countries that get onto the list, what on earth do you have to do to get off it?" I cannot improve on that remark.
I also feel that in the basic procedure there is discrimination by nationality. I quoted to the noble Baroness Article 3 of the UN convention, which is a legal obligation that this country recognises. We are rightly proud of the way in which we adhere to our legal obligations. That article says:
"The Contracting States … shall apply the provisions of the convention to refugees without discrimination as to race, religion or country of origin".
The noble Baroness objected to that reading on the grounds that the word "refugee" applied only to those whose claim had been accepted. I know that there are passages in international law where the word "refugee" does have that meaning. So I took legal advice on its meaning in the context of the convention. I took it from a quarter that I find far more persuasive than any legal advice available to the Home Office. The advice I received was that under Article 3, and in the words of the convention as a whole, one is a refugee from when one applies until someone proves that one is not. Should that prove to be the opinion of the International Court of Justice, we should clearly be found on that article to be in breach of the convention.
At the very least, this clause puts a new hurdle in the way of applicants from some countries and not from others. If that is not discriminatory, I do not know what is. But my gravest dismay concerns sub-paragraph (3) in Clause 1, which insists on supplying accurate information on arrival. I promised the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, that I would debate the issue on the clause stand part debate and not earlier. I have never stood more astonished at my own moderation than when resisting taking up the issue when she raised it.
My first point is that I believe that we are plainly in breach of our international obligations in taking that line. Under Article 31 of the UN Convention:
"The Contracting States … shall not impose penalties on account of their illegal entry or presence on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened, in the sense of Article 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorisation, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good reason for their illegal entry or presence".
If that is the international law to which we are subject, the argument that all applications must be made at the ports is most plainly in breach of it.
My second reason for deploring the argument that all applications must be made at ports is the right to representation. We all find immigration law confusing.
1540
Indeed, many of us have addressed our remarks to the wrong part of the Bill and the noble Baroness who drew our attention to that fact must admit that that is so. I do not believe that we are an exceptionally stupid group of people. If we can make that mistake, so can refugees operating in a foreign language. They need representation to help them represent their case and depriving them of that is an extremely severe affliction. That alone would be a reason for saying that the Government are mistaken in insisting that all applications should be made at the port of entry.
My third reason is that mistakes can be made. Mistakes at the port of entry are not easy to rectify. The noble Baroness will have noticed that I quoted throughout the debate from Home Office refusal letters. The survey from which those came was greeted by the Home Office with the comment that they were exceptional. For all I know that may be so; I am not contesting the point. What I say is that if they are exceptional, there are a great many exceptions. If we are to be asked to accept the judgment of those at the ports as the only judgment we are going to get, we need a much higher overall standard than any of which we have yet seen the least evidence.
The noble Baroness talks of abuses. This clause will create far more abuses than it prevents. It sweeps them all up together. As 1066 And All That says about the Zulu War: cause—Zulus; Zulus exterminated—peace with Zulus. That will be the effect of the clause.
7.15 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: The provision set out in Clause 1 is a principle which Parliament endorsed when it passed the 1993 Act. Paragraph 5 of Schedule 2 to that Act provides an accelerated appeal for claims which the Secretary of State certifies as being without foundation. In the light of the growing levels of unfounded applications, the time has come to build on those arrangements. Streamlining is a necessary component of any effective policy for bringing down the large backlog of unresolved cases. And it will also send a strong signal that unfounded claims will be met by robust procedures.
We have already debated this clause in some detail in discussion of proposals for amendments. Much of the concern that has been expressed has been based on misunderstanding of its intention and effect. It is worth reminding the Committee that there are two basic procedural safeguards that will not be infringed in any way by this clause. First, all asylum claims will continue to be considered on their merits against the same convention criteria as all other claims. A certificate under Clause 1 cannot be issued until that has been done. And, secondly, before removal to their country of origin all applicants will continue to have the right to appeal to an independent adjudicator against an adverse decision on their claim.
Clause 1 will allow the Secretary of State to designate countries where there is in general no risk of persecution. We have given an account of how that power will work, what criteria will apply, the factors we will take into account, the countries we would designate if the power were available now, and our proposals for

1541
informing Parliament of the assessments upon which the decision to designate will be taken. The designation principle is not new. Germany, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Denmark and Finland already operate similar arrangements. And let me remind the Committee again of two key points. There will be no blanket ban on claims from designated countries. And applicants will still have an appeal to an independent adjudicator.
But designation will provide the context against which claims from designated countries are considered. And claims which are refused will attract the accelerated appeal procedure, with shorter deadlines for making, hearing and determining appeals. Moreover, if the adjudicator agrees with the Secretary of State that the application is unfounded, that will be the end of the matter. There will be no further avenue of appeal to the Immigration Appeal Tribunal. Last year, at least 97 per cent. of claims from nationals of the seven countries we have indicated as candidates for designation were refused. That is over 6,750 applications. It cannot be right that we must give equal time and weight to claims from countries like Poland, Romania, India, Pakistan, Bulgaria, Cyprus and Ghana as to claims from countries like Iraq, Afghanistan or Liberia.
Earl Russell: The noble Baroness just said that we cannot give equal weight. Has she not abandoned her claim under international law to give claims individual scrutiny? Has not the Home Office just lost another court case?
Baroness Blatch: No. I am saying that individual cases will be properly considered. They will be fully considered. We are making the distinction between those countries from which most applications come and from which most applications fail. If the noble Earl believes that we are in breach of our international obligation by the inclusion of that provision in the Bill, no doubt it will come to light before the end of the proceedings on the Bill through this Chamber.
On the parliamentary procedure for designation orders, the Government accepted the recommendations by the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee. The Chamber discussed the degree of safety required for designation. Some entirely misplaced concerns have been expressed about the test required by the Bill. I have made clear that the words,
"in general no serious risk",
do not mean that it would be lawful to designate a country where there was a serious level of persecution aimed at minorities. Nazi Germany patently could not have qualified.
Clause 1 will also allow us to certify refused claims where, on arrival, the applicant was unable without reasonable explanation to present a travel document, or where an applicant obtains or seeks to obtain entry using false papers. The Committee rightly resisted a proposal to delete that provision from the Bill. Destruction of travel documents by asylum seekers attempting to impede the asylum consideration process is a growing problem. We accept that genuine refugees may need to use false papers in order to flee their country. The clause
1542
will not affect them, provided they present and declare their papers on arrival. Provided they do that, no certificate will be issued under sub-paragraph 3, even if asylum is refused.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, referred first to Article 3. Our own courts in this country, in his challenge to the benefits restrictions, rejected the interpretation of "refugee" put forward by the noble Earl. I must put the question back to the noble Earl, who cited Article 31 of the United Nations Convention. I shall re-read it for the purposes of the point I want to make. It states:
"The contracting state shall not impose penalties on account of their illegal entry or presence on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of Article 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorisation provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence".
Nothing in Clause 1 is in breach of that article of the United Nations Convention. I am not sure therefore that I accept the point made by the noble Earl.
Clause 1 introduces other new criteria for certifying that a claim is without foundation. They include claims the basis for which no longer subsists; those lodged only after the refusal of leave to enter or the commencement of removal action; and those which are manifestly fraudulent. We have made clear in our background note the intended scope of these provisions.
Each of the new criteria has a specific application. The clause will not allow us to certify all refused claims. A substantial proportion of cases will continue to fall outside the scope of the certification procedure and will therefore attract the standard appeal rather than the accelerated one. The role of the Immigration Tribunal in developing immigration case law will therefore remain.
Clause 1 will enable manifestly unfounded claims to be processed more quickly. That will help to deter such claims from being made in the first place. Genuine refugees will benefit from reduced abuse of the asylum system. The proposals are a sensible and balanced improvement to our procedures.
In opposing Clause 1, the sum of the amendments tabled to the clause by the Opposition adds up to the fact that some Members of the Committee do not accept the case for an extension of the accelerated appeals procedure.
We believe that a case has been made and I commend the clause to the Committee.
7.19 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill?
*Their Lordships divided: Contents, 133; Not-Contents, 81.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Ackner, L.

Balfour, E.

Addison, V.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Aldington, L.

Blaker, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Blatch, B.

1543

Boardman, L.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Bowness, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Lindsay, E.

Bridgeman, V.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Brigstocke, B.

Liverpool, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Long, V.

Burnham, L.

Lucas, L.

Butterworth, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Cadman, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Caithness, E.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

CarnegyofLour, B.

Mackay of Drumadoon, L.

Carnock, L.

Marlesford, L.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Chelmsford, V.

Mersey, V.

Chesham, L. [Teller.]

Miller of Hendon, B.

Chorley, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Mottistone, L.

Colwyn, L.

Mountevans, L.

Courtown, E.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Craigavon, V.

Munster, E.

Cranborne, V. [Lord Privy Seal]

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Newall, L.

Cross, V.

Norrie, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Northesk, E.

DeL'Isle, V.

O'Cathain, B.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Dilhorne, V.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Peel, E.

Donegall, M.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Dundonald, E.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Elles, B.

Rankeillour, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Rawlings, B.

Elton, L.

Rennell, L.

Finsberg, L.

Renton, L.

Flather, B.

Renwick, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Sainsbury of Preston Candover, L.

Gisborough, L.

Sandwich, E.

Glenarthur, L.

Seccombe, B.

Goold, L.

Shannon, E

Goschen, V.

Sharples, B.

Gowrie, E.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Stewartby, L.

Halsbury, E.

Stockton, E.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Harlech, L.

Strange, B.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Hemphill, L.

Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]

Henley, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Hesketh,L.

Tollemache, L.

Hogg, B.

Trumpington, B.

Holderness, L.

Vivian, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Wakeham, L

Jeffreys, L.

Wharton, B.

Kimball, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Kingsland, L.

Wilcox, B.

Kinloss, Ly.

Wise, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Wynford, L.

Knutsford, V.

Young, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Addington, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Avebury, L.

David, B.

Barnett, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Birk, B.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Borrie, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Bristol, Bp.

Dubs, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Ewing of Kirkford, L.

Chester, Bp.

Falkland, V.

Chichester, E.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

1544

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Freyberg, L.

Meston, L.

Gallacher, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller]

Nicol, B.

Gregson, L.

Rea, L.

Grey, E.

Redesdale, L.

Hamwee, B.

Richard, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Ripon, Bp.

Haskel, L.

Rochester, L.

Hayman, B.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Runcie, L.

Russell, E

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Seear, B. [Teller.]

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Hooson, L.

Serota, B.

Howell, L.

Sewel, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Shepherd, L.

Hylton, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Judd, L.

Thurlow, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Tope, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Lincoln, Bp.

Warnock, B.

Lockwood, B.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Whaddon, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

White, B.

Mallalieu, B.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Mayhew, L.

Winston, L.

*[See col. 1558]
Resolved in the affirmative, and Clause I agreed to accordingly.
The Earl of Courtown: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Habitual Residence Test
7.29 p.m.
Earl Russell Earl Russell rose to ask Her Majesty's Government, in the light of the report of the National Association of Citizens' Advice Bureaux, Failing the Test—CAB clients' experience of the habitual residence test in social security, what have been the results of any government monitoring of the effects of the habitual residence test.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, the Minister will remember, I think quite well, a debate we had on the habitual residence test which denies means-tested benefits to people believed not to be habitually resident in this country when the test was introduced. I am now offering the Minister a sporting chance for a return match.
On that occasion each of us had our assessment of what the test was likely to involve. The Minister will take it for granted that his was slightly more optimistic than mine. We now have a body of evidence available. I have the report from the National Association of Citizens' Advice Bureaux, Failing the Test. In that context I would like to say that I have found it by far the most reliable, non-partisan and helpful organisation that regularly briefs this House.
Doubtless, the Minister will have his own monitoring. As is well known, the Department of Social Security will always monitor any of the measures that it brings in. So I am asking the Minister to compare his monitoring with mine to see what happens. I now turn to some figures. Until the end of last year, 25,754 had failed the test and lost means-tested benefit. I understand that that figure can now be updated. There were over 5,000 British nationals in that figure and now, I understand, there are over 9,000.
The percentage of British nationals at the end of 1995 was 21 per cent. and rising. I do not know whether that figure is still rising. Anyone who has been in the Chamber this afternoon will appreciate that I am concerned about the rights of those who are not British nationals. But on this occasion I am going to dwell, first, on the rights of those who are British nationals because to be denied a claim to benefit in your own country when you have no other country to go to, seems to me to be peculiarly wrong. I also believe that it illustrates some of the poor logic in the test.
The Minister himself said on 20th October 1994 that those who were affected, even if they were British nationals, would be, "strangers to this country". I believe that it has not turned out as he hoped. I quote first a case that he has heard me quote before; namely, the niece of our former Leader on these Benches, my late friend Lord Byers. She had gone to Brussels to nurse a sick mother. We all know about the problems of carers, but I believe that it compounds them infinitely if they come home, their caring concluded, and find that they are denied benefit in their own country. Under the new law she is now entitled to benefit in France, but she is not entitled to it in this country and she is North Oxford born and bred. Believe me, I can recognise North Oxford when I meet it! That seems to me to be a little cock-eyed.
Another person with whom I have been in contact—again, not in the citizens' advice bureau sample—had been engaged teaching in France for a number of years. The venture folded and he returned home. He was found not to be habitually resident. So far from the family being strangers to this country, I knew, although he did not, that in the reign of Henry VIII his ancestors had been the biggest taxpayers in England. So much for "strangers to this country"! There are plenty more such cases in the report. I hope the Minister will forgive me if I am a little confused in sorting my papers because, as he knows, I have been otherwise occupied during the afternoon.
There is the case of a man aged 47 who worked in Britain all his life. He went to France to help a friend run a holiday home. After five years the arrangement broke down. We know that that sort of thing happens in small businesses. He returned home and was held not to be habitually resident on the grounds that he had no fixed address and no job. Of course one does not when one returns from running a business abroad. So he was refused benefit. I simply do not see the logic or the sense in that decision.
The test is adversely affecting those who exercise their right to mobility of labour under EU law. There is the case of a scaffolder who spent six months working
1546
in Holland. Work in the construction business is short in this country at the moment. After six months he returned to this country and he was told that he was no longer habitually resident and benefit was refused. There is a carpenter in the building industry who lived and worked in the UK all his life. Because of the recession he was out of work. He was told that there was work available in Germany and he landed up with one of those employers who do not pay. After six weeks he gave it up and came back. He fell foul of the habitual residence test as well. He told the CAB that he was now very worried that if he applied for a building job in Europe again and then at some future point he needed benefit, he might be refused. So he drew the lesson, with apologies to Noel Coward, "Don't put your bike on the Shuttle, Mr. Tebbit".
I remind the Minister that this is not only an interference with people's rights under EU law; it is also a strain on the British Treasury. If people who would otherwise have gone abroad in Europe and worked there during a recession and are prevented from doing it, they remain in this country and they are a charge on the British benefit system. Perhaps for a second I may revert to this afternoon's Question. That seems to me to be the sort of secondary consequence which the Department of Social Security would be very wise to take into account if it genuinely wishes to save money because here, I believe, it is wasted.
A good many people are affected if they return home because of misfortune. For example, a woman went to live in South Africa when she got married and, after a number of years, the marriage broke up. Those of us who sat through the Family Law Bill know that that happens. She came home. She was entitled to a pension of £25 a year because that was under the contributory principle which is not affected. She was not entitled to any top-up from income support. The Minister himself said that people who are British and who were affected, would be strangers to pay-as-you-earn and to tax and national insurance.
I offer the Minister an alternative to eating his words because they are very indigestible. I offer him the alternative of introducing a change in the law that those who are entitled to benefit under the contributory principle shall be found to be habitually resident. I cannot see any inequity in that; it is perfectly possible to do.
There is also a great deal of hardship for anyone who marries abroad. A woman in Spain was the victim of domestic violence. She tried to come home, but could not get benefit. An 18 year-old on a summer contract in Greece, believe it or not, who was injured in a car accident, was flown home and found not to be habitually resident and he was denied any benefit. That might happen to any of your Lordships' grandchildren. It is rather extraordinary. So, first, one does not work abroad; secondly, one does not marry abroad.
The test has worked peculiarly harshly on British people taken abroad while they were children. Before the Minister waxes too clever about that, I warn him that that is my own case. I am prepared to take offence at anything that casts doubt on my Britishness. There is

1547
the example of two British people living in Zambia who were born in Britain. One of them wanted to come back and join the British Army. He could not join by post because the Zambian post is not very good. He was found not to be habitually resident. Another example is that of parents working in the Gulf with children at boarding school in England. When they came of age they were found not to be habitually resident. I am surprised that the oil companies have not protested at that.
I now turn to people who are found in effect to be stateless. A British subject living in Nigeria wanted to be a doctor. She duly qualified, but could not do that in Nigeria because she was foreign. She could not come to look for a job in Britain because she was not habitually resident. Those people really are shunted from pillar to post. That causes considerable hardship and puts yet another burden on local authorities under Section 17 of the Children Act. With all that we have heard today about what is happening with regard to asylum seekers, it seems grossly unfair to put further burdens on local authorities.
During the county council elections of 1993, when the results came through I am afraid that I murmured the old anarchists' slogan, "If voting changed anything, they'd abolish it". I am afraid that I was not mistaken. We find the case of a couple living for a whole week on six pints of milk and one loaf. If that is not gross hardship, I do not know what is. We find the case of a woman who had been living on bread rolls from the Salvation Army, who fainted in the CAB office as she tried to explain her case. I cannot see any useful principle that justifies inflicting that sort of hardship on people who have done absolutely nothing wrong—and I entirely agree with the Government that under EU law they cannot, and should not, discriminate between British nationals and others, which is why I think that they should not do it at all.
The Minister also gave us some assurances on the case law. He said—I regret that I do not have his words to hand, but they are buried somewhere beneath this mountain of evidence—that the Government were not using the test that the House of Commons discussed in 1986—that is, the test of being settled here. He said that they were using something a great deal less onerous. However, as a result of a ruling by Commissioner Howell in 1995, the ground of case law has become something very like what the Minister assured us it was not. Claimants now have to be settled here for a considerable period of time.
As the Minister admitted when we last discussed this, habitual residence is a very vague concept. One set of cases in EU employment law tends to gravitate towards the last place of employment. Another is based on citizenship. That is the line that led to what had previously been thought to be standard precedent. I refer to the case in the House of Lords of ex parte Shah, in which my noble friend Lord Lester of Herne Hill was the successful advocate. In that case the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, made it perfectly plain that a settled period of residence was not necessary; it was a test of intention.
In my view, there is the plainest possible conflict between Commissioner Howell's ruling on the one hand and the judgment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, on the other. The noble and learned Lord's judgment is in line with the assurances that the Minister gave us in October 1994. It is also the higher judicial authority. For both those reasons, I suggest that the Department of Social Security should follow that judgment rather than the ruling of Commissioner Howell—that is, if we must have the test at all. Indeed, in the view of these Benches, the test serves no useful purpose. It does not even do very much to achieve the objective which the Government set for it. Like so many things that we have been discussing, it says, "If any are guilty, sweep up the innocent with them", along the lines of Sherlock Holmes' Inspector Athelney Jones, who arrested everyone in the house to make sure that he had got the right person.
If we were in a position to do so, we on these Benches would repeal the test. I hope that the Government, when they ultimately go before the electorate, will tell the people that they will do likewise.
7.44 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for tabling this Unstarred Question. It is important that we are reminded that the issue of refusing benefit is not a matter of concern only to those who are asylum seekers; there is also the problem of the habitual residence test. Like the noble Earl, I shall draw extensively on the important CAB document, Failing the Test.
The habitual residence test was devised at an exceedingly unpleasant Tory Party Conference to give the Secretary of State a two-minute ovation and a three-minute soundbite. He succeeded in both of those, but failed entirely to consider the effects of what he was proposing.
As we all know, social security benefits come in two packages: insurance-based benefits and means-tested benefits. Insurance-based benefits, such as unemployment benefit, are earned through work and are therefore portable abroad. Means-tested benefits, which test destitution, are not. I accept that those benefits are problematic and they are the benefits that are affected by the habitual residence test. The Government claimed that what they were seeking to do at that Tory Party Conference was to exclude from means-tested benefits those EU nationals, mainly Spaniards advertising in Time Out, who, according to Mr. Lilley, were coming to Britain as tourists for the good life and British social security. The Secretary of State could thus portray himself as simultaneously anti-fraud and anti-European. I wonder whether the Tory Party Conference would have been quite so jubilant if those present had realised just how many other people would be hit by those provisions.
No one—and certainly not these Benches—defends fraud. I do not doubt that when he replies the Minister will quote the figures used last night in the other place by Mr. Evans to show that British nationals are affected less by the provisions than, say, European nationals.

1549
Nonetheless, as the noble Earl said, three groups of people are affected by the habitual residence test: EU nationals, British citizens and what the CAB calls "others".
I turn first to the EU nationals, the group that Mr. Lilley was aiming to hit. Only about half of those who have come through the system have lost their benefit. Why?—because if they are in work or have worked, they are entitled to unemployment benefit on a reciprocal basis; and if they are not in work, they should not have been admitted unless they could show sufficient resources for self-support. When the JSA test is introduced in October, it will apply a tough, actively-seeking-work test for British and EC nationals alike. In so far as there are any additional problems—I accept that there are some—surely the statesmanlike response is to negotiate appropriate reciprocal arrangements and not play the chauvinistic chorus at the Tory Party Conference.
So, the test is not particularly reaching the targeted group, as Mr. Lilley promised at that Tory Party Conference; instead the provisions have reached two other groups who were not originally targeted and about which Mr. Lilley was extremely quiet at that conference. As the noble Earl rightly said, the second of those groups comprises British citizens. Nearly one person in three denied benefit under the habitual residence test is a British citizen whose home country this is. According to the figures that were given last night, that group numbers 9,000.
Perhaps I may give an example from the Independent of 14th February 1996. I refer to the case of Mr. Hugh Sweeney, 39, a sheet-metal worker who, given his trade, was unable to find work in the UK and moved to Australia two-and-a-half years ago looking for work, while continuing to keep his home in Newport Pagnell, on which he paid mortgage, council tax, insurance and water rates. He had a neck injury and came back from Australia. His wife was not very happy there and she came home as well. They have used up all their savings and are living on handouts from his 70 year-old mother-in-law and his brother. He was told that, although he had kept his home here and paid taxes on it and although he is a British citizen, this is not his habitual residence. He is now penniless and has no access to income support.
What about the missionary doctor, returning home after 10 years abroad? As the noble Earl said, what about British building workers? Given the state of our construction industry today, most construction work is to be found on the Continent. The noble Earl referred to the scaffolding worker who went to work in Holland for six months. Building workers often go to Germany for, say, 12 months, doing what the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, would recommend. On returning home to their permanent address—the very address here that they left—they find that they are ineligible for all benefits.
What about British women who marry foreign or EU nationals and whose marriages break down? They return home to find that they are ineligible for benefit. What about the young woman of Pakistani origin who at 17 went to Pakistan for an arranged marriage and
1550
returned home, pregnant within eight months to find that she had lost her habitual residence qualification? She had no money and was supported by parents who were themselves on income support. When she gave birth to her baby five months later, it was found to be seriously and worryingly under weight because of the mother's malnutrition. What about the British citizen, originally from Nigeria, who had worked for the National Health Service since 1965, and who was refused benefit to top up a retirement pension after a three-month visit, following retirement, to Nigeria to see former members of the extended family? As the CAB has said, under the habitual residence rule there are two classes of British citizen: a first class, who firmly hug our shores, and a second class, who may seek temporary work abroad and are rewarded for their initiative in coming off benefit by being denied benefit when they return home.
It is even worse than that. I believe that British citizens who return home after working abroad for six or 12 months are in a worse position that EU nationals. If an EU national has worked in Britain for just 12 months and lived in the UK for three years, he or she can travel abroad for six months and keep his benefit. But if he is British and has lived and worked in this country for 30 years and then goes abroad, not for 12 but for three months, he can lose his entire benefit. What is he supposed to do? Where is he to go? On what is he supposed to live? Who is supposed to take him in? Would the Tory Party conference have cheered quite so enthusiastically if Mr. Lilley had said that these were the people that his proposals would hit? One may be talking of one's son or daughter. The noble Earl quoted the niece of Lord Byers. It appears that a measure designed to stop European benefit holidays has given EU nationals a more privileged status vis-à-vis means-tested benefits than British citizens.
I come finally to the "others" category, which interlocks with the immigration and asylum-seeking rules. Few foreign nationals are eligible for means-tested benefits unless they have been admitted by the immigration authorities and settled or they are deemed asylum seekers at the port of entry. People who are legally settled here, after a visit abroad, find on their return that they have lost their benefit. They may travel to see relatives. For example, a Nigerian man, who had lived in Britain for 20 years and recently become unemployed, travelled to Nigeria for two and a half months to attend to his sick father. On his return he was refused benefit on the ground that he was not habitually resident. I refer to a lone parent who was officially recognised as settled in Britain. She went abroad after 11 years in this country to attempt to negotiate the release of her husband from a Middle East country of origin where he was detained. She had a child at school here and was a school governor. She was refused benefit on her return on the basis that she was not habitually resident.
Mr. Lilley wrapped himself in a patriotic flag at the Tory Party conference. He was worried on behalf of British citizens and taxpayers. We, too, are worried about British citizens and taxpayers—that is, those who live and work and pay taxes in this country and who briefly leave this country—perhaps for six months or a

1551
year—to find work. On their return, perhaps after a marriage breakdown, they find that they have lost all their rights to means-tested benefits. Is our citizenship so fragile or tenuous that it is broken by working for six months as a scaffolder in Holland, by a visit to Pakistan for eight months, or a visit to Nigeria for two months? As for European nationals whom Mr. Lilley was so anxious to exclude, they continue to come and be housed and to claim benefit because that is required under European law.
7.55 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, at least one matter has been made clear by this short debate. Both parties opposite wish to abolish the habitual residence test and go back to the position before when people could come to this country and immediately claim income-related benefits at a cost to the British taxpayer currently estimated to be £30 million.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, if I may correct the noble Lord, I did not say that we would or would not abolish it. That question did not arise in my speech. However, we shall certainly review it to overcome the difficulties that have been highlighted.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, "review" seems to be the favourite word. I do not know whether I conclude from that that the noble Baroness says on behalf of the party opposite that it may not abolish it but keep it. Having listened to her words, I would not be drawn to that conclusion.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I should like to ask the Minister, in answering a question from the Liberal Democrat Benches not to use the expression "the party opposite".
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I take the reprimand from the noble Earl. I believe that his party is clear on this issue, as is it on the general question of increasing taxation. It stands fairly honestly on the issue, if I may so describe it. The noble Earl clearly wishes to abolish the habitual residence test and accepts that it is an obligation on the British taxpayer to pay the £30 million that I have mentioned. I hope that I am not being unkind to the position of the noble Earl.
Earl Russell: My Lords, since the Minister has introduced the issue of cost, I should like to ask whether he has costed the charge to the British benefits system of people who refrain from using their right to go abroad and work in the EU.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, that is a bit like the question that the noble Earl posed to the House—
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Exactly!
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I do not know how the noble Baroness can say that from a sedentary position when she has not heard my response. A little patience may be required. If she knows what
1552
I am about to say, she may intervene and tell your Lordships. I was about to remind your Lordships and the noble Earl of the question that the noble Earl posed last week on the first day of the Committee stage of this Bill. He said that it was a question that he had posed to his father who had been greatly worried by it. As the light from the sun takes seven minutes to get to the earth, how do we know that the sun has not exploded six minutes ago? The question that the noble Earl has just posed is perhaps in that category.
This is an important debate which is about the habitual residence test that applies to income support, housing benefit and council tax benefit schemes. It is concerned with the question whether people who come to this country from abroad, whether they are European Union nationals or British citizens returning from residence abroad, have an immediate right to turn up at the local benefit agency office and say, "Please, kind British taxpayer, will you give us income-related benefits?" We decided that this was a loophole in the system that ought to be closed. In my last speech to your Lordships on this subject, I gave examples of how, certainly in European terms, people were abusing the system. The ways in which it was being abused were given fairly reasonable coverage in Time Out and a Spanish newspaper. People had been advised that Britain was a pretty soft touch so far as concerned what my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, Peter Lilley, called benefit tourism.
This debate has been brought about by the report from the citizen advice bureaux on the subject. I am afraid that we cannot accept any of the recommendations of that report. I should like to explain some of the points that I believe defend our position and make the position of the CAB and that of both parties opposite indefensible, at least concerning the British taxpayer. Until the test was introduced in August 1994, nationals of other European economic area countries could come to this country to look for work and claim income support, housing benefit and council tax benefit for up to six months. At the time we estimated that some 5,000 European economic area nationals did exactly that.
There was considerable anxiety about that state of affairs. Ministerial postbags, stories in the newspapers, and articles in foreign newspapers, indicated that the position was being abused, as I have already said. Investigations revealed that Britons going to another EEA country did not have the same freedom of access to the benefits which are available there. There was, in fact, a one-way traffic which put British taxpayers at a disadvantage.
The noble Baroness, the noble Earl, and the CAB suggested that we should try to persuade our European partners that we should renegotiate the agreement that we have with them so that their systems come more into line with what ours used to be, and allow our nationals to go abroad and immediately to be able to receive income-related benefits in the countries of our European partners. The UK system is not comparable with the social assistance schemes of most of our European partners. We have a legal rights-based system founded on a national scheme. Most of our European partners

1553
run a much more discretionary scheme which is much more locally based. In the countries of most of our European partners, residence permits are required. It is those residence permits which exclude UK nationals from their benefits. The habitual residence test reciprocates the residence permits required in those countries. I doubt whether any progress can be made in that regard.
Most of our European friends would tell us, as they do on so many other things, that we should put our own house in order rather than ask them to make changes. In this case, we have put our own house in order. We have put ourselves much more in line with the way these matters are dealt with in the EU. I should have thought that the parties opposite might welcome that piece of European integration on social security.
We decided that we had to take action. How we took action is of course through the habitual residence test, for the reasons that I mentioned. A person is entitled to income support if he satisfies the conditions of that entitlement. Income support followed the history and methods of supplementary benefit introduced by the Labour Government back in 1966. That legal entitlement, as I said, contrasts with similar benefits in other European countries. We could not go down the same line as them without a dramatic change to the basis upon which we pay out social security to all our citizens. Our solution had to be consistent with Article 6 of the Treaty of Rome which prevents discrimination on the grounds of nationality. That is how we came to the habitual residence test. That is why it has to be a test for everyone and not just for the citizens of our fellow European countries. It is a test which has to be applied also to returning citizens of the UK. I made that point firmly last time we debated the subject: if it were not for that European dimension, we could probably find a way of preventing Europeans from coming here and keep the door open, so to speak, for any British citizen, no matter how tenuous their links with this country, to come here and receive benefit immediately. We could not design a system which did that, because that would be in breach of Article 6 of the Treaty of Rome, which is why the habitual residence test touches both.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, would the Minister care to confirm that at the Tory Party conference Mr. Peter Lilley did not mention that the scaffolder, the building worker, or the missionary doctor—British citizens—would be denied benefit; and that that would be the implication of the habitual residence test?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I shall come to the issue of British citizens affected by the test in a moment. As I recall the speech, my right honourable friend was turning his attention to the problem coming from the Continent. I know that the noble Baroness is a fully paid up member of the European Union movement—those who support being in Europe—as I do. We have to pay regard to the articles of the treaty and ensure that we obey them, and treat citizens of our fellow EU member states in the same way as we treat our own.
1554
As I have said previously, I accept that the noble Earl does not believe that we should have attempted to address the problem. He believes that we should not have tried to introduce the test; but we did so. That is why some British citizens are caught by the test.
Earl Russell: My Lords, if I may be permitted a clarification, I did not say we should address it at all. I said in October 1994—and I say again—that we should address it through the availability for work and seeking work rules. That seems to me to be properly attuned to the individual case in the way that this blunt instrument is not.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I understand the point that the noble Earl is making. I am glad to hear that he approves of the test that we are going to apply in JSA to actively seeking work, and so on. But of course those tests, where they deprive someone of benefit, do so for a short time only. It is not the same as the situation at which we are looking, where people come from abroad and expect to be given benefits for 13 weeks in the case of someone from Europe, and 26 weeks in the case of a British citizen coming from outside Europe.
The position about the tests is that in European terms many more people were, so to speak, caught by the test than we first thought. There are more people coming from the Continent to this country and claiming benefit. Of the people who come from other states of the EEA and take the test, some 50 per cent. pass and some 50 per cent. fail (some 14,000 each of the 28,000 who have taken the test). In the case of UK nationals, the figures are much more favourable regarding passing the test. Of the 105,000 who have taken the test, 91 per cent. passed; and 9,700 failed.
A great deal has been made about the people who failed. Perhaps I might say a few words about them; but let us remember that over 90 per cent. passed the test. The test, I believe, is fair. A reading of Commissioner Howell's view, which was referred to by the noble Earl, gives a reasoned view of the test and gives in a clear way the parameters that we should apply. I appreciate that the noble Earl disagrees with Commissioner Howell. He took into account the Shah case. In paragraph 22 he refers to it in particular. He refers to it elsewhere, also. He said:
"In my judgment this factual approach to the meaning of habitual residence is not in any way inconsistent with anything said by Lord Scarman in Shah's case".
I believe that Commissioner Howell did take into account Shah's case. The test of course does not discriminate on grounds of nationality. It enables British citizens who have established habitual residence in this country to have short absences abroad without terminating their habitual residence and losing benefit. Commissioner Howell's judgment makes clear the parameters that adjudicators should take into account.
Some anecdotal evidence of cases has been given. We could swap cases across the Floor of the House; but I shall take the first lady quoted by the noble Earl. I do not want to get into the detail of people's circumstances, because, as your Lordships know, one of the difficulties that Ministers in the Department of Social Security have

1555
is that they have an obligation of confidence to those people who make application. It is pretty common knowledge, and is reported, that the person to whom the noble Earl referred lived in Belgium for 10 years. I believe that it is reasonable to suggest that her home was, and she intended her home to be, in Belgium. She was not, by any common person's definition of the words, habitually resident in the UK.
Earl Russell: My Lords, is it not a common experience that caring for an elderly parent may be a long-term operation but it is not normally a life sentence?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I believe that there is a little more to it than that, but I do not wish to go into the case because it is confidential. However, for whatever reason, the lady lived for 10 years in Belgium. That is a long time by anyone's definition of where one is habitually resident. I do not believe that she could be described as being habitually resident in the United Kingdom.
Perhaps we may take the case of the 63 year-old Scotsman and his German-born wife who have lived in Germany for the past 22 years. They returned on holiday to see the husband's mother and to assess whether to come here to retire. By no stretch of the imagination could they be described as habitually resident in the UK. There is the case of the 22 year-old woman now living in Turkey, having married a Turkish citizen three years ago. She returned to the UK to take advantage of the National Health Service because she was pregnant, and would be returning to Turkey. There is no justification for her asking the British taxpayer to keep her while she is here. A woman aged 17 was given a one-way ticket to the UK by her parents. She was born and brought up in Nigeria, had not worked here and had made no arrangement as to what she would do when she arrived.
A 26 year-old woman lived in Pakistan for the first 11 years of her life and came to the UK for eight years in 1987. She returned to Pakistan to get married, spent one month in the UK in 1992 and returned with two small children in June 1994. She hopes that her husband will be able to join her when he gets a visa. I do not believe that that person can be described by the ordinary use of English words as habitually resident in the United Kingdom.
A woman aged 28 was born in London and taken to Nigeria by her parents when she was eight. She was educated in that country, worked there, was married and came to the UK on 19th August with her eight month-old child. On 23rd August she claimed income support as a lone parent separated from her husband who had remained in Nigeria. There is no way she can be described as being habitually resident in this country.
Those are all UK citizens and the kind of people whom the noble Earl is honest enough to say, having come into the United Kingdom—there is no dispute that they are allowed into the United Kingdom—he would allow them to turn up at the benefits agency and ask, "Please may we have money from the British taxpayers?". They are British citizens who failed the
1556
test; and of course on the borderline of any test there will be difficult cases. The appeal system exists to try to resolve such cases. Decisions such as that by Commissioner Howell help the adjudicator to decide and the appeal system to resolve the matter.
The fact is that as regards a few people on that borderline who perhaps could argue one way or another, 90 per cent. clearly passed the test and were habitually resident in this country. They are given the benefits that they seek. Only 9 per cent. failed the test. That in no way downgrades British citizenship or is unfair to people who really do have a close link with this country. A few of the examples that I have given suggest that they do not have a close relationship. Of course they can come here and as British citizens they have a right of abode here, but I do not believe that that necessarily gives them the right immediately to be supported by United Kingdom taxpayers.
I have instanced the cases of a few people who were born here perhaps a long time ago, brought up in another country and left the UK many years ago for a new life. For a variety of reasons they wish to return here now. The Government have no objection to them returning; they have every right to do so. However, to suggest that they have an immediate right to social security is quite another step and we believe that a line must be drawn. Of course it is unfortunate that some people decide to return here and are penniless. They should have given that some thought before they left the country in which they lived and in many cases worked, in which they were married and in which they had children. They should not decide, "Well, if we go back to dear old Britain they won't bother. There taxpayers will pay us whatever we are due from the social security system, regardless of whether we have many links of the habitual residence kind with the United Kingdom".
That test is the first test of residence in the income-related benefit schemes for at least 50 years. Of course it was a radical decision to start the test and there have been and are bound to be teething troubles. We recognise that that is the case. We have trained the officials who deal with the cases and we shall gain experience with the passage of time. We recognise that there was not case law which specifically addressed the habitual residence test in relation to income support, although comprehensive guidance was provided. The Social Security Commissioner dealt with the case of a British citizen late last year. Commissioner Howell's decision identifies a number of points which have been in dispute. Some half-a-dozen cases will come before the commissioner in the next few months which will further clarify the interpretation and operation of the test. We recognise that there have been delays in the appeal procedure, but these delays have been reducing and appeals take, on average, 21 weeks to be heard. Obviously, some are heard more quickly than others, but that is no different from United Kingdom citizens totally resident in this country who are also appealing against social security decisions—
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I realise that the Minister has been generous in giving way as often as he has. But how comfortable is he with the fact

1557
that as regards the appeals ratio the appeals are heavily in favour of those who claim and that a number of those who are winning their appeals are British citizens? What on earth are they supposed to live on during the 21 weeks when the appeal is heard?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, we have dealt with the question previously as regards asylum seekers. They are in no different a position from United Kingdom citizens who have never been further than this country, have paid their taxes and so forth and have decided to appeal against a decision not to give them benefit. They do not receive benefit while they are appealing. I cannot believe that it would be right to say that people whose residence here is doubtful as regards claiming the benefit ought to be given the benefit while they appeal, while United Kingdom citizens who have stayed here and about whose habitual residence there is no doubt should be denied benefit while they appeal. I find the position that we are taking perfectly and absolutely logical.
If the noble Baroness is suggesting that the party opposite will change that system and allow people to receive benefit while they appeal, that is fine. That is at least one commitment that has not been reviewed and that is definite in the social security system which the party opposite would like to see in place. But I have to tell the noble Baroness that she may find it expensive.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I beg the Minister's pardon. He again referred to "the" party opposite. That is inaccurate.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I apologise again to the noble Earl. I must try to remember that there are two parties opposite. If it in any way helps the noble Earl and defends myself, perhaps I may say that sometimes when I look at his party I see a clearer view of its policy on taxes and spending than I see when I look at the party directly opposite me. It is pretty hedgy about whether it will increase spending. In fact, only the other day Mr. Gordon Brown stated clearly, as seen in a newspaper headline:
"Labour may freeze public spending at present levels".
Obviously, that includes the saving of £30 million we are making from the habitual residence test. I am not surprised that the noble Baroness is thinking about reviewing the test; that makes no commitment to increase public spending by the £30 million we have saved.
In conclusion, I believe that there was an abuse. There can be no argument about that. There certainly was an abuse of our social security system. We had to act to combat that abuse. Our action had to be within European law. That is why we introduced the habitual residence test. We believed that it was the best solution. It quite clearly enables the great majority of British citizens to continue to receive benefit even when they have been out of the country for a while. We believe that those people who are not habitually resident should not be supported by the British taxpayer. That includes those who are pursuing an appeal.
1558
In short, we were faced with a problem. It may not have been the biggest problem in social security history but, as I have explained to your Lordships before in that old Scottish phrase, many a mieckle makes a muckle, and £30 million is a fairly substantial "mieckle" (which is a little bit). All those little bits add up to a great deal of money in relation to social security and one must look at them all.
We believed that this was a problem which had to be tackled. We tackled it. Of course, it is always easy to decline to tackle difficult problems and to allow taxpayers' money to be spent even when you feel that there is no justification for it. We have not taken that route. We have tackled that difficult problem. I believe that we have tackled it sensibly and sensitively. As the system evolves and the decisions of the commissioners and so on come clearer into case law, even the CAB may see that the system defends the rights of taxpayers who are also citizens of this country and may also have something to do with the CAB. It defends their position from those people who have no justifiable right to receive benefits from the said British taxpayer.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until half-past eight.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 8.21 to 8.30 p.m.]

Asylum and Immigration Bill
House again in Committee.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord McColl of Dulwich): Before I call Clause 2, I should inform Members of the Committee that in Division No. 2 the number of noble Lords who voted "Content" was 134 and not 133 as announced.*
*[see col. 1544]
Clause 2 [Removal etc. of asylum claimants to safe third countries]:
The Lord Bishop of Ripon The Lord Bishop of Ripon moved Amendment No. 31:
Page 2, line 34, at beginning insert—
("(A1) Nothing in this section shall be construed as applying to—

(a) a person who can show a reasonable claim that he has been the victim of torture in a country in which he is claiming to fear persecution; or

(b) a person who is claiming to fear persecution in a country which has a recently documented record of torture.").

The right reverend Prelate said: This is the first of the amendments relating to Clause 2. Its wording is identical to an amendment which was accepted in Committee last week. However, I believe that it is worth spending a moment looking at the implications of the amendment for Clauses 2 and 3. The combination of those two clauses effectively, in my view, removes the right of appeal against removal in certain cases. Therefore, it is a damaging provision for asylum seekers.
Under Clause 2, certain categories of asylum seeker can be removed to a safe country, which we know now is to be limited to countries in the European Union, and Clause 3 limits their right of appeal to one which is to be made from outside this country. It is clearly the case that on occasions those countries which are claimed to be safe have not proved to be so. Indeed, various examples can be given of countries such as Italy and Belgium, which have, in certain circumstances, returned asylum seekers when it was thought that they would be secure.
It is clear that the combination of those two clauses makes it possible that asylum seekers will effectively be removed beyond the safe third country before they have had the opportunity to exercise their right of appeal. In those circumstances, it seems right that we should consider the implication of this for those who come under the terms of the amendment. I do not propose to repeat the debate which took place last week, but it was made clear then that there was considerable feeling in the Committee over the matter regarding those who had either been victims of torture or who claim,
"to fear persecution in a country which has a recently documented record of torture".
It would be helpful to know what is the Government's intention in relation to Clauses 2 and 3 and with regard to the amendment. In the light of last week's Committee decision, do the Government regard it as right that the provisions of that amendment should in fact be taken to refer to Clauses 2 and 3, as well as to Clause 1? I should be most grateful if the Minister could make some comment in that respect. I beg to move.
Lord Dubs: I rise to express my support for the amendment. I seems to me that one of the key difficulties with Clause 2 is that there are insufficient safeguards against the asylum seeker who is removed to a safe third country being in turn removed to another country and then possibly to the danger that he faced when he originally fled. That is the crux of the safe third country argument. If we had sufficient safeguards it would not be such a critical issue. In the absence of such safeguards, we must have cause for concern. The amendment exemplifies precisely why there is so much cause for concern.
Members of the Committee agreed last week that we must pay particular regard to the victims of torture. It would seem to me to be the worst possible outcome if individuals who were liable to be sent back to face torture were removed from this country with no assurance that the immediate country to which they were removed would allow them to remain there. We have real difficulties in that respect.
The evidence of the Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture (which carries out such an excellent job in looking after those victims) has drawn attention to the fact that the hypothesis that I have developed is actually a very real one and that, at times, people are returned or are close to being returned to
1560
countries from which they will in turn be removed immediately to the country where they were threatened with, or possibly subjected to, torture.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: The view of the Committee with regard to the issue of victims of torture seems to me to have been very clearly reached on the first day of our proceedings. As the right reverend Prelate pointed out, the purpose of the amendment is to extend that safeguard to cover Clause 2. As the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, said, Clause 2 raises the whole issue of what is sometimes called "a safe third country". The United Kingdom Government is bound to comply with Article 33 of the UN convention on refugees, which states very plainly that no country on any grounds whatever may return an asylum seeker to another country without the certainty that he or she will be safe in that country.
The fear is that, even though the list of countries provided by the Government is limited to the European Union plus, as I understand it, other countries specifically designated by the Secretary of State, there are real concerns about what may arise in certain cases. Indeed, in some cases there are very close connections between third countries and others closely associated with them. That is particularly true of metropolitan countries and their former colonies, to which refugees or asylum seekers may be returned, subject to the rules on refoulement of the UN Convention, without the authorities having adequately satisfied themselves that those people will be safe in the country in question.
A kind of brutal "pass the parcel" is emerging among countries of the world in sending refugees to and fro among themselves. It is because we very much fear that process that we are trying to exempt those who are victims of torture from the provisions of Clause 2, as well as those in Clause 1. I am delighted to support the right reverend Prelate in his amendment.
Lord Runcie: I should like to add just a few words in support of the right reverend Prelate, not least because my name is attached to the amendment. It was not my intention to make a speech; indeed, I have not come here armed with one. In the light of the debate on the previous amendment of this character, I had assumed that the matter would also be settled as regards Clause 2. That was, perhaps, rather naïve of me.
What prompted me to respond to an invitation to back the amendment was simply my own experience in helping to set up the Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture, which has pioneered the identification, the treatment and, indeed, a greater awareness of the existence of torture. I should also like to express my admiration for the work of Helen Bamber and her associates during that period. It was at that time that I was able to spend some time at the foundation and saw for myself the victims of torture in Iraq, or the effects on the Kurds. I was most impressed by the expertise which had been built up there.
That led me to believe that the UK had established a reputation in drawing the attention of the international community to the existence of torture and the possibilities in the identification and treatment of

1561
torture. I was convinced that in any new Bill about asylum, the appalling phenomenon of torture in the present day should be established in the provisions, and that this country should even err on the side of generosity when it came to the consideration and treatment of people who came from countries where torture was a recognised practice. I therefore support the amendment.
Baroness Rawlings: We have debated the subject of torture already under Clause 1. Of course genuine victims of torture will be protected by the Bill. However, what worries me is that yet again the amendment is not about the victims who have been tortured and who seek asylum. Forgive me if I have misunderstood, but, as I understand it, the proposals are to allow asylum seekers into the country, not if they have been tortured themselves but merely if they come from a country where torture exists.
8.45 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: I believe that someone said from a sedentary position that the amendment does not say that. However, I believe that the second limb of it does say that. The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, was concerned about safeguards. I join him in that I too and the Government are concerned about safeguards. However, with a note of cynicism, I must say that it does not matter how I describe the safeguards and tell the Committee that they exist, some Members of the Committee will refuse to accept my word.
Amendment No. 31 is concerned with the minority of cases where we decide to remove an applicant to a safe third country. But before I speak to that amendment, I propose to add to what I said last week about cases which are considered substantively in the United Kingdom.
All sides of the Committee agree that torture is utterly repugnant. All agree that the aim of our asylum procedures must be to protect victims of torture. But it is clear from last week's debate that many of your Lordships remain unpersuaded on two key issues. First, that our procedures do in fact provide effective protection and would continue to do so under the Bill. That is not believed. Secondly, that most current asylum applicants are at least unfounded and at worst abusive; and that if we provide loopholes they will be exploited on a large scale. Let me begin by addressing those two key issues.
I address the safeguards first. Our objective is to ensure that victims of torture are identified. The Asylum Directorate takes account of all available evidence, in particular about the individual case, but also about whether there is a consistent pattern of serious human rights violations in the country of origin. Claims are considered against the 1951 convention criteria. That is to say, a well founded fear of persecution by reason of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion. There is no universally agreed definition of persecution and it may take many forms. But the Government have no doubt that torture is one of them and that a person with a well founded fear of torture will qualify for asylum under normal conditions.
1562
Victims of torture who have not been persecuted for a convention reason do not therefore qualify for asylum. But we are also bound by our obligations under other international instruments. Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Article 3 of the UN Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment both prohibit removal to a country where there are substantial grounds for believing that the applicant would be tortured. It has been suggested that because these instruments are not incorporated into UK law, they provide insufficient protection for victims of torture. I refute that. First, if an applicant engages our obligations under either the UN convention on torture or the European Convention on Human Rights, but not under the 1951 convention—for example, because the reason for the fear of torture is not one specified in the criteria for refugee status—exceptional leave will normally be granted. Secondly, individuals have an avenue of redress under the European Convention by taking their case to the European Commission and the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.
One of the first elements in the induction training for asylum case workers is to raise awareness of the barriers genuine refugees may face in relating their experiences to officials. Additional training is given to those who will interview asylum applicants. Detailed guidance and training on assessing asylum claims, including the appropriate standard of proof to apply, also form an element of the induction programme. The United Nations High Commission for Refugees and other independent bodies contribute to the Asylum Directorate's training. At a meeting with officials on 3rd April the Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture has now also been invited to contribute to training. I join the noble Lord, Lord Runcie, who referred to the important work of the medical foundation.
Very great weight is attached to any medical evidence. If an applicant claims to have been tortured, the case worker will ask whether an examination has been carried out and request a copy of the report if it has not been submitted. Case workers also have access to the guidelines for the examination of survivors of torture which have been prepared by the medical foundation. We are considering some suggestions by the foundation for structuring the interview in such a way as to create an environment which encourages applicants even further to disclose fully the details of their claim; for example, through the greater use of open-ended questions. It is already our policy to seek to provide an interviewer of the same sex as the applicant in cases identified as sensitive.
Last week there were some misconceptions about the time allowed for consideration. The Bill does not affect the initial decision time. At present, the average decision time for a new claim is nine months, except in cases handled under the Home Office's short procedure, where cases are at present decided in three to six weeks.
The short procedure involves a shorter interval between application and interview, and between interview and decision. But interviews and decisions are accorded the same level of consideration and under the

1563
same standard of proof as other cases. The standard the applicant has to meet is a modest one—no more than a reasonable likelihood of persecution. None of that would be changed by the Bill. Any case which proves not to be straightforward can be taken out of the short procedure and considered at greater length. Requests for an extension in individual cases so that medical evidence can be prepared are very carefully considered. We have issued an instruction that the refusal of such a request by the medical foundation must not be taken at a lower level than senior executive officer. Medical evidence submitted after an initial refusal will be fully considered. If the refusal is maintained, reasons for doing so would normally be given in writing.
All evidence submitted after the Home Office decision is also considered by the adjudicator. It is open to an adjudicator to grant an adjournment to enable the applicant to produce further evidence, including of course evidence of torture, if he considers this necessary in the interests of justice. Again, neither the proposed new procedural rules nor the Bill itself will remove the possibility of adjournment where it is justified.
That is a summary of the safeguards which apply. We are not complacent and want the safeguards to be as effective as we can make them. That is why we asked officials to discuss them with the medical foundation.
But we also have to take into account the other side of this equation; namely, the widespread exploitation by abusive applicants. The Bill's opponents have so far had very little to say about that side of matters. Indeed, some have sought to pass off the problem of abuse of asylum procedures as a figment of the Government's imagination. That position is, however, untenable in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Last year only 5 per cent. of applicants were found to qualify for asylum and another 16 per cent. for exceptional leave to remain on compassionate grounds. That leaves 79 per cent. of claims which were refused. If the Home Office were refusing large numbers of genuine applicants, it would be losing large numbers of appeals. But the fact is that only 3 per cent. of appeals against refusal of asylum were upheld last year. Some of our critics, such as the Asylum Rights Campaign, have sought to counter this very telling statistic by attributing the appeal results to bias on the part of adjudicators. Words fail me. Such a claim is totally unfounded. Adjudicators are experienced members of the legal profession, appointed by my right honourable friend the Lord Chancellor, and are wholly independent of the Home Office.
That is why the Government opposed Amendment No. 3 last week. Applicants would be able to avoid having their appeal accelerated merely by claiming that they had been tortured, no matter how untruthfully, or by pointing to instances of brutality by members of their country's police or security forces, no matter how isolated or irrelevant to the applicant's individual circumstances.
However, the Government accept that the Committee has expressed a clear wish that we should acknowledge the special vulnerability of victims of torture, and should do so on the face of the Bill. We therefore intend to
1564
bring forward at Report a modified amendment to Clause 1. Broadly speaking, this would reflect the principle that there should be an exemption for victims of torture from the accelerated appeal procedure, but it would be expressed in a way which would avoid laying Clause 1 wide open to evasion by people who are not victims of torture.
I have indicated the extensive safeguards that apply to protect victims of torture. I shall now turn to Amendment No. 31, which is concerned with the minority of cases which we do not consider substantively, and where we decide instead to remove the applicant to a safe third country. These are almost always applicants who claim asylum after arriving here from one of our western European neighbours—in 80 per cent. of cases from France, Germany, Belgium or the Netherlands.
The Government take a very straightforward view of such cases. First, we consider that our immediate neighbours, all of whom are advanced democracies with developed legal systems and asylum procedures, are just as capable as we are of complying with their international obligations and protecting individual rights. This means that, if someone is a genuine refugee or victim of torture, he will be just as safe presenting his claim in Germany as he will be presenting it here. Secondly, like all European countries, we take the view that asylum seekers should look for refuge to the first safe country to which they come. If they arrive from a safe third country in which they could have claimed asylum, we reserve the right to return them. That is a long-standing principle which is, for example, already stated in the Immigration Rules. Indeed, it is embodied in the Dublin Convention, which Parliament endorsed in 1991.
The purpose of Clause 2 is to render the safe third country policy more effective by removing the delays inherent in an in-country right of appeal. But Amendment No. 31 would insert a very large loophole into Clause 2. The first part of the amendment says that the Secretary of State should be prevented from returning an asylum seeker to a safe third country if the applicant has shown a reasonable claim that he is a victim of torture. This would mean that, by including a torture claim in his application, the asylum seeker would be able to fend off removal. In order to form a view on whether the applicant had "shown a reasonable claim" of torture, the Secretary of State would be compelled to assess the asylum claim substantively. By the time he had done that, removal to the third country would probably no longer serve a useful purpose, and the third country would often no longer be prepared to take him back. The whole purpose of the safe third country policy is to enable applicants to be removed quickly without substantive consideration of the claim. For that reason alone, Amendment No. 31 could render Clause 2 ineffective and is therefore unacceptable to the Government.
The second leg of the amendment would prevent removal to a third country if the country of origin has a recently documented record of torture. That is a totally

1565
irrational proposition. If a third country is indeed safe, why should the conditions of the country of origin be regarded as an obstacle to removal? Moreover, there are very few countries where there are not from time to time allegations of misconduct by members of the police or security forces. But that is very different from saying that torture is systematic or widespread, or that a particular applicant would be at any risk of torture if he were returned to his country. This part of the amendment alone could very well be used by appellants to prevent the issue of a Clause 2 certificate in a high proportion of cases, without any basis in a substantial risk to the applicant.
Do the supporters of the amendment deny that it would render Clause 2 inoperable? Do they deny that it would establish a loophole which could be widely exploited? I have not heard a convincing response to these questions. The truth is that many of the Bill's critics reject the Bill's asylum provisions altogether and would not mind in the least if Amendments Nos. 3 and 31 rendered them ineffective.
Some have argued that it is inhumane to remove an applicant, even if it is only to one of our European neighbours, if he or she is suffering the traumatic effects of torture. Of course, we do not remove people if they are medically unfit to travel. If there are concerns on that score, the port medical officer is on hand. But the Government do not accept that anyone who claims to have been tortured should be exempt from removal. That would, as I said earlier, simply create too big a loophole. If they are genuine refugees and genuinely too traumatised to travel, they would have shortened their journey by claiming asylum before reaching the United Kingdom in the third safe country through which they travelled.
Amendment No. 31 is irrational, unjustifiable and would be very damaging to Clause 2. I urge the Committee to vote against it.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: Before the Minister sits down, perhaps I may press her on one point. The noble Baroness said that the Government will bring forward an amendment at Report stage in order to ensure that the victims of torture are referred to on the face of the Bill. I am very glad to hear that. Is she willing to explore the possibility of that amendment being applied also to Clause 2?
I take the point that few people may come within the category of victims of torture likely to be removed in that way. In that case, the amendment would have little effect. However, in view of the widespread concern on the matter, will the noble Baroness state whether the government amendment will extend to Clause 2 as well as Clause 1?
Baroness Williams of Crosby: Before the noble Baroness responds, perhaps I may raise the possibility of the short procedure being extended to other countries. It was announced by the Home Office on, I think, 16th March of this year. Can the Minister
1566
tells us whether the safeguards which she told us applied to people who conceivably might be victims of torture would still apply if the short procedure were extended beyond the group of countries on the designated list?
Lord Avebury: Before the Minister finally replies, perhaps I may raise this point. If she is prepared to consider an amendment to Clause 2, will she differentiate between countries through which an asylum seeker has passed? As she described, the majority of these cases fall into the category whereby someone has entered Britain via a European Union state and might have claimed asylum on the way through. In other cases, the person arrives in this country as effectively the first country of asylum because any other territory through which he passed was not a safe country. The Government propose to send the individual to an allegedly safe country through which he has never passed. I realise that there are not many such cases. However, I asked the noble Baroness's honourable friend, Miss Widdecombe, whether there was any intention of applying the Dominica technique to other asylum seekers, apart from Dr. al-Mas'ari. She said that the Government would do so if the circumstances made that seem expedient. I wish to place a barrier on the removal of asylum seekers who may have been subject to torture to a third country which falls into that category.
I would prefer that the Government do not have the power to send individuals to allegedly third countries outside the European Union. But since we are now referring to these particular asylum seekers who have been subject to torture in their countries of origin, and since the right reverend Prelate has asked whether the Government are prepared to consider any amendment to Clause 2, it would be wholly within the spirit of the Government's objection that the vast majority of such people come through safe third countries if such an amendment applied only to third countries through which those individuals had not passed. I hope that the Government might take that point on board before Report stage.
Lord Hylton: Before the noble Baroness replies, perhaps I may, first, apologise that I was in Russia during the first day of the Committee stage. I apologise too that I was unable to listen to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of. Ripon moving this important amendment.
Does the Minister accept that Turkey is a country with a recently documented record of torture? Will she also confirm that Turkey has experienced very nearly 12 years of very serious armed conflict, which has led to enormous displacement of population and extreme abuses of human rights? Does she agree that torture has to a considerable degree become institutionalised, and anybody detained by the security services in that country is at some risk of torture? Will she tell the Committee whether any abusive applications for asylum in this country have been received from people coming from Turkey?
9 p.m.
Lord Dubs: I shall make just a few comments in relation to the Minister's remarks before she replies. I am disappointed that she thinks some of us do not listen to the safeguards that the Government apply to—
Baroness Blatch: I said, "did not believe".
Lord Dubs: The Minister says that we do not believe the safeguards. We should have to discuss which ones they were. Certainly, where there are safeguards which protect an individual asylum seeker, I welcome them, as I am sure do other Members of the Committee.
If we do not believe all the safeguards, it may have nothing to do with the Minister's remarks. It may be because we have some experience of the Government's practice over the years as regards asylum seekers. There is sometimes a difference between the way asylum seekers are treated and the Government's statements as to what the policies are. That is where disbelief sets in. I do not cast any aspersions on what the Minister says. It is a matter of how the policy is implemented down the line. There are too many examples of how it has been implemented for some of us to sit back and say that everything is all right.
A second point made by the Minister to which I wish to draw attention was that there was a safeguard in the European Convention on Human Rights and the European Court of Human Rights. Although Britain has lost more immigration cases in the European Court of Human Rights than any other European country, possibly second to Italy—the Minister says that that is not so; but the fact is, we have lost a large number of immigration cases over the years. The problem is that it is a long process. Many asylum seekers may have been removed and returned to the country from which they fled. In those circumstances, fighting a case is very difficult.
Thirdly, none of us condones or supports abusive applicants. They undermine the concept of asylum, which is a fundamental human rights concept. It is easy for governments to say that applications are abusive even before there is any evidence of that. The Minister herself has certainly not said that. However, I must remind her that some of her colleagues over the years have, as it were, denied that asylum seekers had any basis for their claims even before those individual cases had been considered. There is extensive chapter and verse which I and many of my noble friends could quote to support that assertion.
I turn to the substance of the Minister's remarks. There is a real difficulty. She said that such cases are not considered substantively. The problem with removals to safe third countries is precisely that; namely, the Government on their own admission do not consider those cases substantively. I have serious doubts as to what that means in terms of the adequacy of their scrutiny. I fear that many are barely considered at all. The difficulty is that as a result of a case not being considered substantively, victims of torture may not be identified by officials. That is surely one of the main concerns in relation to Clause 2 and the way it operates.
1568
The Minister talked about the tradition of safe third countries and said that it was a long-standing principle. I beg to differ. It is a long-standing principle that individual asylum seekers who have spent a considerable period of time in a safe third country should be returned there. By "a considerable period of time" I mean weeks or months. That has been the practice for many, many years. I cannot remember the date when the Immigration Rules were changed; I believe the policy emanated from one of the secret committees in Brussels. However, what has happened in the past two or three years is that the Immigration Rules themselves incorporated a change, and certainly the practice then became that if an asylum seeker spent any period of time in a safe third country en route to Britain—I mean circumstances such as being in transit at an airport, or spending just two or three hours driving across part of that country—that is now the basis for applying the safe third country rule. That is what causes concern.
Nobody says that if an asylum seeker spends three months in France, he or she should then be accepted into our asylum procedures here. What I am saying, however, is that if somebody happens to spend half an hour in transit at Charles de Gaulle Airport, it seems against this principle that that individual should be sent back to France without any firm guarantee (as we shall cover in relation to a later amendment) that the individual will then be allowed to have his or her claim fully considered by the French authorities. It is the absence of that further safeguard that makes us concerned that the effect of these proposals is that victims of torture—and, as later amendments will show, other asylum seekers as well—may be sent back into danger. There is a loophole here which the Government's assurances have not dispelled.
Baroness Blatch: A very large number of questions have been raised. I shall try to address myself to all of them. First, I accept what the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, just said. I have never made the claim that he condones abuse of the system. However, if one looks at the amendments tabled to this Bill, many seek to make abuse of the system easier; and some not only make it easier but create even more loopholes which make it possible for abuse to be increased.
In regard to the other point made by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, about simply landing in another safe country, travelling to another safe country, and then coming on to this country, we do not concede—nor indeed do our courts—the principle of seeking asylum in the first safe country on the assumption that the person fleeing for their lives or from a fear of persecution should seek haven in the first safe country that they come to. That is the principle on which the propositions in the Bill are made.
The safe third country principle has been repeatedly endorsed by our own courts. It applies when a person has had an opportunity to claim in a third country. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, referred to Judge Pearl and the al-Mas'ari case. The judge held in the al-Mas'ari case that it is lawful to send an asylum seeker to a country with which he has no connection where

1569
appropriate. Of course, he took a different view about a particular country in that case, but the principle of sending persons to that country as a safe country was considered lawful.
The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, asked about Turkey. First, I made it clear in another part of the Bill—I believe on the first day of Committee—that Turkey is not a country that we were considering adding to the list, for some of the reasons given by the noble Lord. In 1995, 50 applicants were recognised as refugees; 35 were granted exceptional leave to remain; and 910 were refused. But I am not in a position to say on what basis those refusals were founded. Certainly there were 910 refusals.
Again, the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, referred to the ECHR. His point was absolutely taken about the length of time. But however long the process, we shall not remove a person until Strasbourg has made a determination and completed the work in considering that case.
Lord Dubs: I thank the Minister for giving way. I understand what she said. The difficulty is that under the safe third country rule individuals are removed very quickly. Getting a case en route to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg takes a long time. It will be almost impossible for an asylum seeker to take advantage of that particular provision, given the speed with which people are removed.
Baroness Blatch: What is important is that the needs of the asylum seeker are properly catered for. If the asylum seeker is quickly removed—I believe that I have already made the point, and I hope very clearly, that we would not send someone who was medically unfit to travel—and was returned to a third safe country, exhausted the appeal system and wished to take his case to the European Court (and equally if someone was returned to this country), under our international obligations under the ECHR we would honour his right to petition and that person would not be removed while that took place.
In reply to the right reverend Prelate, for all the reasons that I have given—although I say, with a note of cynicism, that there seems to be a dogged determination not to believe what I say—I believe that we have spelt out sufficient safeguards and discussed in some detail how the system works under Clause 2. We do not envisage making an amendment to Clause 2.
I can give the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, an unequivocal yes. The same safeguards would apply to any safe third country added to the list. I have also made clear that the countries that we were considering possibly adding to the list were the United States, Canada and Switzerland. It would be difficult to argue that they were not safe third countries. I believe that I have answered all the outstanding questions asked of me.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: Perhaps I could make two comments. First, in reply to the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, I thought that I understood her to say that the intention of the amendments was that those who
1570
came under these categories should be given a positive determination of their asylum status. I do not understand that to be their intention at all. It is simply that the safeguards should be thorough and in place. It is not that any decision is made about which way the final determination should go.
Let me echo what the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, said about abuse. It is quite clear that nobody condones abuse. We are all united in wanting to make sure that those who abuse the system are disposed of as quickly as possible. There is disagreement about who falls into that category. I understood the Minister to say that all those who neither received asylum status nor had an appeal allowed, nor were given exceptional leave to remain, were to be regarded as abusing the system. Many of us find that difficult to accept. We accept that there are some who abuse the system, but not the totality of those whose claims are refused.
I am disappointed that the Minister is not able to make any concession on Clause 2 in relation to the amendment. We shall reserve our position and consider what we shall do at Report. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 32 not moved.]
Lord Avebury Lord Avebury moved Amendment No. 33:
Page 2, line 42, leave out ("to which subsection (4) below applies,") and insert ("which is or forms part of a member State of the European Union, or is designated for the purposes of this paragraph in an order made by the Secretary of State,").
The noble Lord said: This is a drafting amendment to improve the readability of the Bill. It does not alter the meaning in any way. I hope that the noble Baroness will concede that.
The amendment would delete the phrase to which subsection (4) applies and transfer the wording from subsection (4) into the parent, Clause 2(1)(c), so that paragraph (c) will then read:
"except in the case of a person who is to be sent to a country or territory which is or forms part of a member state of the European Union or is designated for the purposes of this paragraph in an order made by the Secretary of State".
That is very much clearer than the drafting in the original Bill where one has to look away from Clause 2(1)(c) to see what the meaning of the whole clause is. When one looks at subsection (4) it appears to stand on its own and not relate to anything at all. It is better if the relevant wording is put back where it belongs and one can then see the sense of the whole paragraph.
While I am on my feet, perhaps I can ask the noble Baroness to reply to the second leg of my question on the previous amendment; that is, whether the Government will reconsider their attitude to sending people to third countries with which they have no connection. In her reply the noble Baroness said that Judge Pearl found that the Government had acted lawfully in attempting to send Dr. al-Mas'ari to Dominica, a place with which he had no connection, a place with a different religion and culture and which was in every way wholly unsuitable for a person with Dr. al-Mas'ari's background.
The Minister said that the three countries which it was proposed to designate were the United states, Canada and Switzerland. If she can assure me that those are the only three countries that will ever be on the list, that will give me a certain amount of reassurance. If she can further reassure me that people will not be sent to the United States, Canada or Switzerland unless there is a good reason for them to go there—for example, because they have family connections or other links—that will be highly acceptable to the whole Committee.
What is objectionable is the notion that at the whim of the Secretary of State a person can be sent, not to a country through which he or she may have passed and where the Government take the view that the applicant ought to have applied for asylum, but to some third country with which the applicant has no conceivable connection.
When we considered the case of Dr. al-Mas'ari, the Government said that there was a precedent from the French sending 20 asylum seekers not to their country of origin but to Burkina Faso. They said that there had been no successful challenge to that operation. I pointed out recently that that was wrong and several of those asylum seekers had successfully contested their deportation to Burkina Faso in the French courts.
Generally speaking, over the whole of Europe, we ought to resist the principle that asylum seekers who come to any European country should be bundled out of the continent and placed in some third country which is completely alien and foreign to their way of life, culture and background. If we believe in treating people in a civilised manner—after all, they are asylum claimants, though they have not had their cases considered substantively—we must severely limit the scope of the countries to which we send them. If Canada, the United States and Switzerland are to be the only three designated countries, I am happy with that. But I should like a further assurance from the Minister that only people with some connection with those countries will be sent there. I beg to move.
9.15 p.m.
The Lord Advocate (Lord Mackay of Drumadoon): I am dealing with this amendment and I regret to say that the answers I give on behalf of my noble friend Lady Blatch will not be acceptable to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, but I give them nonetheless.
In relation to his first point, I can give no assurance that we will reconsider our position in relation to sending applicants back to safe countries with which they have no connection. In the case about which there has been some reference already this evening, Judge Pearl acknowledged that such an approach was compatible with the convention and therefore no assurance is appropriate with regard to that.
Equally, with regard to increasing the number of countries that the Secretary of State may have in mind to designate in an order, as set out in subsection (4) of Clause 2, again it would not be appropriate to give any categoric assurance at this stage that they will not be increased. Likewise, restricting the sending of applicants
1572
to countries—Canada, the United States and Switzerland—merely if there are family ties, is not an assurance that I am in a position to give. I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, will not be surprised to hear those answers, but those are the considered views of the Government in this matter.
In moving the amendment, the noble Lord said that he had no intention of trying to change the meaning of the clause. Unfortunately, the amendments have that very effect. In Clause 3(2) there is a reference to Clause 2(4). The effect of the Committee accepting the amendments would be to render Clause 3(2) completely ineffective and to render Clause 3 contrary to the intention of the Government in bringing forward the Bill.
I accept that the noble Lord does not intend in any sense to wreck the effect of Clause 2 but his attempt to make things clearer has a contrary effect. For that reason, I must invite the Committee not to accept the amendment.
Lord Avebury: The noble and learned Lord is not quite correct in what he has just told the Committee because it would be very easy to amend Clause 3(2) by substituting Clause 2(1)(c) for Clause 2(4). The clause would then refer to the correct passage in the earlier clause. If the Government were to accept the amendment on the basis that it was a simpler form of language than they have in the Bill, there would indeed have to be a consequential amendment to Clause 3. That would be very easy to put in at a later stage.
However, on the more substantial points, I am indeed, as the noble and learned Lord anticipated, extremely disappointed with his answer. I shall have to come back at Report stage with some further amendments to ensure that we place some limits on the power of the Secretary of State to designate so-called safe third countries. We know exactly how this power has already been used by the Secretary of State. We have to try to ensure that we clip his wings at Report stage to prevent him from doing it again. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 34:
Page 3, line 12, after ("territory") insert ("has given an undertaking that it will consider the application and").
The noble Lord said: This is a crucial amendment as regards the principle of Clause 2. Although I accept that one or two of the arguments have already been used in relation to the earlier amendment dealing with victims of torture, I think it is right to state what are the key concerns about Clause 2 as exemplified by the amendment.
The first difficulty is the one I mentioned earlier. Before a third country removal the individual asylum case is not considered substantively. There is therefore a weakness in the procedures and it is possible that a person with a well founded fear of persecution may well be removed. The problem is that there is no assurance that the country to which that individual is removed will itself consider substantively the claim for asylum.

1573
Indeed, the individual may not be allowed to enter into the procedures at all in the third country to which he or she has been removed.
The UNHCR recognised this difficulty. Perhaps I may quote from a statement it put out in 1993 regarding the then Asylum and Immigration Appeals Bill. It said:
"Mere assumptions as to the safety of an asylum seeker in the third country cannot be sufficient ground for his removal from the country in which he is requesting asylum".
In a paper commenting on this Bill the UNHCR made the position even clearer. It stated:
"UNHCR is of the opinion that there can be no automatic or reliable assumption that simply because an asylum seeker passed through another EU state or some other liberal democracy, en route to the United Kingdom, the country is 'safe' against refoulement, whether directly or indirectly … Because of the current lack of consistency in inter-state practice, and the attendant risk of refoulement, UNHCR is not supportive of unilateral action by states to return asylum seekers to countries through which they have passed, unless the prior agreement of that receiving state is first obtained".
We have two alternative propositions. The first is contained in the Bill in that the Secretary of State has certified that it is his opinion—in other words, he simply has to believe that everything may turn out all right for the asylum seeker. Against that, we have this amendment which says that the country to which the individual is to be removed—that is to say, the safe, third country—has given an undertaking that it will consider the application.
That is surely a crucial difference. All we are asking for is that when there is a removal to a safe, third country it is not the Secretary of State's opinion that that country will consider his application that is sufficient, but that we have some assurance from that country that the individual's application will be considered properly.
I understand that in the other place the Government put forward the objection that this process would take a little time. We are talking about individual human rights. If another government is not willing to give us an assurance that the asylum seeker returned to that country will be allowed to enter into the asylum procedures, then what assurance do we have that fairness will be done to that individual? If the government of the safe, third country is not prepared to confirm to us what the intentions are, how can we possibly risk sending the person back? The danger is that that government in turn may say that the asylum seeker spent a few minutes passing through another safe, third country. That government in turn will pass the individual on and in the end there is no assurance that he will not be sent back to the country from which he originally escaped. These provisions are not confined to European Union countries. So far as I can tell, they can apply to any country and that gives further scope for argument.
I wish to ask the Minister a further question: in the earlier debate on the amendment dealing with torture victims, the Minister said that there was a principle about applying for asylum. Possibly, I tacitly accepted that when I should have talked about the practice of applying for asylum. The noble Baroness mentioned international law. I wonder what is the basis for that
1574
proposition. It may be a practice that the Government welcome and one that has been adopted for some time by a number of countries on the basis of a lengthy stay in the country before moving on and then the principle of the safe, third country applies. In fact, I do not believe that there is such a principle. I believe that we have used that word as it applies to a practice which governments have adopted. I am really concerned about the way in which Clause 2 will operate. The safeguard in this amendment will give us all some assurance. I beg to move.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I speak to this amendment and then I shall be able to consider saving time on the amendment that is in my name because I believe that the principle is very much the same.
I wish to make three points. The first is that the provisions in the 1993 Act for the suspension of an appeal are being removed under Clause 2 in this Bill. In plain English that means that a person can appeal against being sent to a third country prior to the legislation now before the Committee, and have the right, while the appeal is being considered, not to be sent out of the country. Under the provisions of this Bill, as I understand it, they will be sent out of the country and the only right will be to appeal from the country to which they are sent.
Therefore, the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, and I are asking for an assurance that that appeal will be allowed to proceed in the country to which the asylum seekers are sent before being sent there. If there is no such absolute commitment by the country to which they are sent, it is by definition not for them a safe country because they cannot pursue their appeal in that country, albeit that they may have a right, on the face of the Bill, to do so. It is a non-substantive right.
The second point is that in many cases it would be almost impossible to raise and to maintain an appeal from a third country, even a friendly third country, because of the difficulties of getting advice and counselling on the basis on which to make a successful appeal. It is therefore all the more important to ascertain that that third country will allow that person to proceed through the processes of appeal.
The third point is that it lies with the United Kingdom Government relatively easily to meet the anxieties expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, and myself. The reason that I say that it should be relatively easy to do that is because, as a result of Her Majesty's Government's own representations, issues concerning intergovernmental co-operation on home affairs and internal security come under the third pillar of the European Union. That third pillar is intergovernmental and is not part of the acquis communautaire. That intergovernmental agreement enables government members of the European Union to agree on how to deal with a number of issues. What could be easier than to persuade them to agree on a successful intergovernmental agreement under the third pillar with regard to entering into assurances about refugees being sent to other European Union countries?

1575
With respect, it seems to me that the whole clause suffers from the fact that we do not have a safe and certain set of assurances from other EU member states about the handling of genuine asylum seekers. I believe that it would be possible to achieve that under the third pillar. Indeed, we have no other way of dealing with this because there is no European parliamentary accountability for the third pillar, only an intergovernmental one. Therefore, it lies very much with Her Majesty's Government to raise the issue within the third pillar and to try to get a satisfactory set of commitments from other EU states to say that they will allow appeals in their own countries. That seems to be the minimum required to make the Government's assurances about safe third countries into a reality and a certainty. I commend Amendments Nos. 34 and 35 to the Committee.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Hylton: I support the principles of Amendments Nos. 34 and 35. Those of your Lordships who can recall the time of the Cold War and the beginnings of détente will know that there were many cases of people being shuttlecocked from one country to another. They were usually stateless people whom no country would accept. I believe that one man spent many months of his life on a ferry going between Hong Kong and Macau. That is the kind of situation that we wish to avoid. We wish to avoid transfers from Britain to a supposedly safe country, on to other safe countries, and to unsafe countries.
The Minister has implied that it would be possible for those who are removed from Britain to a safe third country, probably in Europe, to conduct their appeal from that third country in our jurisdiction and in our courts. Something has already been said to point out the extreme difficulties of such a procedure. Therefore, if somebody is to be removed to a safe third country, that person needs to be able to get proper advice which is relevant to that country and to conduct the appeal entirely in that country. I support the amendment.
Earl Russell: In days gone by when they used to duck witches, it used to be a principle of the test that a guilty witch would float and an innocent witch would sink. The third country appeal is a bit like that. If the third country is in fact safe, you can prosecute the appeal—I shall not say "perfectly adequately", but you can prosecute it.
However, if the third country is not safe for the particular applicant, you cannot prosecute the appeal. All that can be said when the applicant disappears into God knows where—perhaps a prison in Zaïre—is, "We lost him". That is why the undertaking that the third country is prepared to receive the applicant is vital to the process of removal to a safe third country and to third country appeals. Without that, Clauses 2 and 3 are, in my opinion, completely unacceptable.
The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, hit the nail on the head when he pointed out that the key issue was access to the process. This is where the undertakings are needed.
1576
I should like to quote some observations mainly by UNHCR on European Union countries. Regarding Greece, it was said:
"Whilst the legal situation and current practice in Greece may not provide wholly satisfactory guarantees that asylum seekers will be readmitted to Greece, UNHCR considers that effective protection could, however, be ensured in specific cases through explicit undertakings by the Greek authorities, expressed for example in bilateral communications between the governments concerned".
That is exactly the procedure that we recommend in this amendment.
Take the case of Italy. In 1993 a Sri Lankan asylum seeker was returned from the United Kingdom to Italy. Italy imprisoned him. He was then sent to Thailand, which is not a signatory to the UN convention. The UNHCR's recommendation was the following:
"Pending clarification of this incident, I have requested the Home Office not to return asylum seekers to Italy without the necessary safety conditions having been verified with the Italian authorities".
That is the question to which this amendment asks for an answer.
Take the case of France. For example, I refer to the principle that arose in the case of Berdjane. The appellant was returned to France from the United Kingdom on third country grounds. He arrived in France and was asked for his papers. Of course, all of his papers were for admission to the UK. He did not have papers for admission to France because he had not intended to be admitted to that country. He was told that he was an illegal immigrant and could be detained for 24 hours, after which he had to leave France. The Home Office adjudicator who considered that case said:
"It appears to be the practice that claims are not accepted from illegal entrants who are returned to France. This raises the risk and possibility of refoulement".
Even in countries within the European Union there is a severe risk of not being admitted to the process. I do not believe that we can return applicants to third countries until we are sure that they are admitted to the process. If we regard that as an acceptable procedure, it will be done to us in return.
Last Tuesday I asked a question to which I would welcome an answer from the noble Baroness. I did not get it then. Perhaps I raised it at the wrong moment and she was not prepared for it. I refer to a hypothetical asylum seeker from Chad who wishes to apply for asylum in France because he speaks the language. He escapes overland through Nigeria, catches a plane to London—because he is much more likely to catch a plane if it is going to London than Paris—makes his way to France and is referred back by France to the UK under the third country rule. In those circumstances, what are we to do with that applicant? Do we admit him to our procedures—in which case well and good? It may not be quite what is wanted but it is better than nothing. Do we send him back to France—in which case we play battledore and shuttlecock? Do we send him back to Nigeria? If so, will Nigeria send him back to Chad? If that is the case, both we and France are in breach of our international obligations. I remind the noble Baroness that, since a great many planes touch down here on the way to continental European destinations, if there is a perpetual batting to and fro of third country applicants

1577
the flow of refugees to this country is likely to increase rather than diminish, which I understand is not the intention of the Home Office.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: In moving the amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, recognised, as he recognised earlier this afternoon and this evening, that it is acceptable on occasions to pass applicants on to safe third countries. It is clear from what the noble Earl, Lord Russell, said, that his objection to what the Government propose is much more fundamental. It is right therefore that the Committee should appreciate the importance placed on the provisions set out in Clauses 2 and 3.
The Government believe that the effectiveness of our immigration control is weakened significantly if economic migrants can travel from country to country until they pick one where they want to work, and feel that it would be of economic benefit for them to stay there. They seek to achieve that objective by claiming asylum.
A procedure which allows quick removal sends out a clear signal, which the Government believe requires to be sent out, that we are determined in this country to maintain the integrity of our immigration controls. If we are unable quickly to remove applicants to safe third countries, it becomes, for reasons which will be well understood by the Committee, more difficult, and, in certain instances, impossible to do so.
If there is a substantial delay in the matter being raised, it is more likely that the third country will decline to take such people, and, more important, if the appeal procedure is allowed to run before the removal takes place, it becomes much easier for the applicant to seek to create some doubt as to whether a safe country would deal with him in the way that the Bill proposes.
Accordingly, it is important to bear in mind what is set out in Clause 2. Subsection (1) provides that the Secretary of State has to certify that in his opinion certain conditions are fulfilled—those conditions being set out in subsection (3). I need not repeat them. It is not sufficient for the Secretary of State just to pluck an opinion out of the top of his head. He has to be satisfied that it is reasonable for him to hold that opinion, and any opinion that is then incorporated in a certificate is of course susceptible to judicial review by a process which is well known to the Committee.
It is important to bear in mind that this is a structured approach which is designed to back up the effectiveness of our controls which are deemed to be appropriate if we are to send the right messages.
Before I turn to deal with the specifics of the amendments, it may be of assistance to the Committee if I set out the Government's general position on agreements and undertakings in third-country cases. The Government are not opposed to bilateral or multilateral agreements where they can be negotiated. A later amendment is concerned with the Dublin Convention, to which my noble friend Lady Blatch has referred, which provides a mechanism for determining which member state is responsible for determining asylum applications lodged in the EU. This country ratified that convention
1578
some five years ago. We look forward to it coming into force. In the meantime, removals to France are covered on a case-by-case basis by a bilateral agreement which we have negotiated separately. We have a similar, although not identical, agreement with the Spanish authorities.
We do not accept that third-country removals should be held up in the absence of such agreement, and the Immigration Rules which apply in this country make that clear. Paragraph 345 of those rules provides that, so long as the applicant had the opportunity to claim asylum in the third country, or there is other clear evidence that he is returnable there, the Secretary of State is under no obligation to consult the authorities of the third country before the removal of the asylum applicant.
If we were obliged in every case to obtain undertakings from third countries on a case-by-case basis, we would for all practical purposes be unable to operate an effective third country policy. We believe that it would encourage third countries to refuse to take applicants back and applicants would know that they could travel from country to country within Europe before finally claiming asylum in this country, safe in the knowledge that Parliament would have prevented their being returned to the safe country from which they came. An applicant who had previously been refused asylum by another European country would come to this country and lodge a further claim here safe in the knowledge that we would be forced to consider his claim substantively rather than return him to the country which had previously refused asylum.
The precise terms of Amendment No. 34 would prevent removal of an asylum seeker to a safe third country unless that country had given an exclusive undertaking that it would consider his asylum claim. We see no justification for introducing such a principle. The certificate which the Secretary of State requires to pronounce is to the effect that in his opinion, which is already subject to judicial review, the government of that country or territory would not send the asylum seeker to another country or territory other than in accordance with the convention. The Government consider that that is an adequate reassurance.
If the third country refuses to consider the claim substantively it does not follow that there has been a breach of the convention or that the asylum seeker has been placed at risk of persecution. For those reasons, the amendment is not acceptable.
I turn to a number of points which Members of the Committee have raised. The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, asked whether third country removal is a principle of international law. It may well be that there has been some confusion in the Committee about whether it is a principle or a practice. The Government proceed on the basis that the practice is consistent with the terms of the 1951 convention, which is widely recognised by the fact that the practice is followed in a large number of countries.
The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, asked about the ability to conduct appeals from safe third countries. The Government are satisfied that that is a reasonable

1579
assumption to make. As may arise in detail on a later amendment, it is perfectly possible for legal advice to be obtained from this country in connection with such appeals where appropriate legal aid is available to people who are not resident in this country. The countries concerned are, in accordance with Clause 2(4), member states of the European Union. The intention is to include three other countries; Canada, the United States and Switzerland. I find it difficult to believe that in these days of communication by fax, telephone and post it is impossible to make appropriate arrangements for such appeals to be properly put forward.
I turn to the somewhat hypothetical case raised by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, involving Chad, Nigeria and France. If the hypothetical situation be as described by the noble Earl and the route followed was from Nigeria to the United Kingdom I understand that the claim would be considered substantively and would not be dealt with in any other way.
Various comments were made in passing about procedures in France, Greece and Italy. Clearly, Her Majesty's Government keep in touch with their European partners about the way in which they handle their asylum and immigration procedures.
If there were any serious concern about what was happening in a particular country, I venture to suggest that it would be very difficult for the Secretary of State to grant a certificate in terms of subsection (3)(c) of Clause 2; namely, that it was his opinion that the Government would act in accordance with the convention. If there were such serious weaknesses, it is unlikely that the convention would be followed. For those reasons, I urge the Committee to reject Amendment No. 34.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: I ask the noble and learned Lord to deal with one point which I raised to which he has not replied. He indicated that the Government could not accept amendments of the kind we are putting forward. He referred to "safe countries". How does he define a safe country if he has no assurance that that country will allow the use of an appeals procedure for asylum seekers?
Moreover, he did not reply to the point made by my noble friend about what we would do when treated as a third country by another country because the people concerned had gone through the UK on their way to a European Union country. It seems to me that that matter can be dealt with adequately only under the third pillar, to which the noble and learned Lord did not refer. Will he not consider those points?
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: I apologise for not dealing in detail with every point that was raised.
As regards the third pillar, there are informal discussions between member states about their prospective procedures. The Government are not prepared to go to the extent of reaching an agreement beyond that which is set out in Clause 2(3). Otherwise, by a different route, one is effectively getting into a situation which this amendment and similar later
1580
amendments are designed to achieve; namely, to require on a case-by-case basis or on some omnibus basis an absolute guarantee not that the case should be dealt with in accordance with the convention but beyond that, that it should be dealt with substantively in that particular country.
I shall reflect further on the other points raised by the noble Baroness. I shall either deal with them on later amendments or write to the noble Baroness about them.
Lord Dubs: I thank the Minister for dealing with the many questions that have been put to him in the debate. However, he has done nothing to reassure me that the system will work fairly and properly.
A great deal seems to depend on the opinion of the Secretary of State. I am not suggesting that the Secretary of State would not act on his own best judgment, but the fact is that there would be no proper assurance that the government to which the individual was returned under the Clause 2 provisions would not in turn say that there was another country to which the person should be moved. By that time the safeguards about which we have heard would no longer be applicable. Indeed, if the individual was moved quickly from the safe third country to which we had sent him, the provisions for appeal under Clause 3 would hardly be operative because the individual would not be in a position to exercise those rights. But we may come onto that in a few moments.
As his argument against the amendment, the Minister said that it would be too time-consuming to deal with the matter on a case-by-case basis because every time we wanted to send somebody back we should have to obtain that country's agreement that the individual's claim would be considered there. A subsequent amendment deals with the Dublin Convention, but in a sense that convention already provides a possible model. There is no need to do it on a case-by-case basis. We could enter into agreements with other countries to the effect that they would allow the claims of whoever we sent to them to be properly considered, provided that we could demonstrate that such individuals had spent some time in the other country. Then, in turn, we would do likewise if the journey had been in the reverse order.
It seems to me that we have a model in the Dublin Convention; that we have a precedent that this could be done by agreement; and that it need not be done on a case-by-case basis. Therefore, I do not see why the Government are so reluctant to move in that direction. Indeed, we will put the argument more clearly in the context of the Dublin Convention in a short while when we deal with that amendment. I am rather disappointed that the Government do not accept that there is a problem which has been stated by several Members of the Committee.
The problem is that once a person is removed from this country there is no assurance that any country will allow him to claim asylum there. The individual will, in turn, be moved from country to country until he may well be left in the original country from which he escaped and where he may face danger. That is the gap in the system. If we could find some way of closing it, we could then accept the thrust of the policy. However,

1581
in the absence of any assurances, I am somewhat dismayed. Perhaps the Minister would care to comment further before I decide what to do about the amendment.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: It may help if I give Members of the Committee certain examples of what might happen in the event that there is the shuttling backwards and forwards about which so much concern has been expressed. It is important to bear in mind that we are dealing here with member states of the European Union. Whatever our differences may be on certain issues that fall to be debated in European institutions, we are still talking to each other. We would like to think that we are still behaving humanely when matters of such sensitivity have to be settled.
Let us suppose that we removed an applicant to France and that that country immediately granted the asylum seeker leave to remain but was not prepared to consider his asylum application. The applicant might, for example, secure leave on the basis of a marriage to a French national or on some other sympathetic basis. In such circumstances, the applicant would be perfectly safe in France. In that case, I venture to suggest that there is no reason why we should have required an undertaking of the nature sought by the amendment that the application would be dealt with by implication on a substantive basis.
Another alternative is that we remove an asylum seeker to France and the latter has evidence that the applicant had originally travelled to France via Germany. Again, I venture to suggest that Members of the Committee would not object to the French authorities acting in accordance with the terms of the convention—and, no doubt, their own domestic legislation—and coming to the conclusion that it was a matter for Germany to address the substantive application in terms of the convention, thereby passing the asylum seeker back to that country. That is a second clear example of a case which would not pass the test set out in the amendment.
A third example is that France, having had the applicant sent back to them, might then return the applicant to this country. As I have already indicated, one would suspect—and, indeed, one would certainly hope—that such cases would not occur very often. However, if they do, it is important to bear in mind the fact that there is no obligation on the Secretary of State to issue such a certificate, nor is there any obligation on this country to keep the game of shuttlecock going backwards and forwards. Indeed, if recent experience is anything to go by, one would hope that noble Lords would draw that to the Government's attention and seek to ensure that such cases were dealt with on a reasonably sensible and perfectly humane basis.
The trouble is that the amendment seeks to focus the opposition which many Members of the Committee bring to the Bill on the suggestion that because, some months if not years after other countries in Europe did so, this country is putting forward legislation to tighten our immigration controls and prevent us having to deal with a disproportionate number of cases which are ultimately rejected on appeal, that is to the detriment of the bona fide cases which we would prefer to deal with
1582
sooner. Far from seeking to achieve the Bill's objectives, putting the additional proposals into the legislation seeks to frustrate them. That is why the amendment is unacceptable.
Lord Dubs: I heard with interest what the Minister said. I am emphatically not trying to frustrate the purpose of the Bill with the amendment. I am simply trying to bring in minimal safeguards for the people who are caught by the provisions. I wish to consider what the Minister said and reserve the right to come back to the matter on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 35 not moved.]
10 p.m.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 36:
Page 3, line 14, at end insert ("and
() his removal from, or the requirement for him to leave, the United Kingdom would be in accordance with the terms of the Dublin Convention.").
The noble Lord said: The amendment stands in the names of myself, my noble friend Lord McIntosh and the noble Earl, Lord Russell. It seeks to use the Dublin Convention to provide the framework for third country removals. My intention is to secure that, if the amendment were accepted, then third country removals would be on the basis of the Dublin Convention; that they would therefore be confined to European Union countries; and, most important, that the Dublin Convention would determine the state responsible for examining asylum applications. That is the key difference between using the Dublin Convention and the Bill as it stands.
I repeat, because it is the most important point in the amendment, that the Dublin Convention specifies which state is responsible for determining or examining an application for asylum lodged in one of the member states of the European Community. If the Government adhere to the Dublin Convention, as they say they do, and if before too long the remaining countries sign it, then we have a sensible model for dealing with third country removals within the European Union. It is a model which meets the concerns which several Members of the Committee expressed in earlier debates on the clause. Therefore the amendment makes sense and provides a good basis. We could move forward on that understanding.
Of course, there would still be the difficulty with countries not party to the Dublin Convention or countries outside the European Union. But at least if they were within the European Union it would mean progress, given that most of the third country removals involve people who have come to this country from France or Belgium. I beg to move.
Lord Avebury: I welcome the amendment because it places limits on the countries to which the Secretary of State could send the applicant. It removes the power which otherwise exists in Clause 2 for the Secretary of State to designate third countries indefinitely on a whim. I am worried by the statement from the Minister earlier

1583
that we shall begin with countries that we may think are acceptable like the US, Canada and Switzerland. However, on the face of it the Bill contains the power to extend the list indefinitely and to send applicants to bizarre third countries like Dominica. I wish to see that power removed from the Bill. It is an excellent idea that we should limit the Secretary of State to countries which will enter into the Dublin Convention. They are the ones from which the vast majority of people concerned have arrived, as the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, said. I believe that the tiny minority we might wish to send to third countries other than those which belong to the Dublin Convention could be safely left outside the procedures of the Bill.
I hope that the amendment will be acceptable. A multilateral agreement which did not require individual acceptance by every country, as proposed in the previous amendment, is a superior way to tackle the issue. The amendment would be a vast improvement to the Bill. I hope that the Government will accept it.
Lord Hylton: If I were the Minister, I would cling to Amendment No. 36 as to a lifebelt thrown into a stormy sea. Surely the amendment solves the problem so far as concerns the European Union.
Amendment No. 35 was spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, but not moved and therefore barely debated. It gives a model for third countries where a written agreement has been negotiated. The Minister told us that a bilateral agreement was already in existence with Spain. Spain is a member of the EU. Surely that agreement could be adapted to other countries which are not members.
Viscount Brentford: Perhaps I may ask this out of ignorance. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, spoke of leaving aside other countries. If the amendment were passed, what would be the position of third countries such as the United States and Canada?
Baroness Blatch: The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, described the amendment as a lifebelt thrown in a stormy sea. After I have spoken to the amendment, I hope he will understand that I should be in the stormy sea for a very long time—or at least until the final country had ratified the convention.
Amendment No. 36 would require the Secretary of State to certify in third country cases that an applicant's removal from, or requirement to leave, the United Kingdom would be in accordance with the terms of the Dublin Convention. The Dublin Convention, as the Committee is aware, is concerned with determining which European Union state should be responsible for examining asylum applications. The United Kingdom Parliament ratified the convention in 1991. The Government support the early ratification of the convention by the two original signatories, the Netherlands and Ireland, which have not yet ratified it, and look forward to it coming into force. We believe that there can be advantages in multilateral agreements covering third country returns where such agreements can be negotiated. The Dublin Convention should lead
1584
to greater certainty in the handling of cases where applicants have transited other member states before applying for asylum in the United Kingdom.
To the extent that Amendment No. 36 is concerned with ensuring that the United Kingdom observes its obligations under the Dublin Convention, it is unnecessary. The United Kingdom has ratified the Dublin Convention. I can assure the Committee that we take our international obligations very seriously. We will, of course, fulfil our obligations under the Dublin Convention once it comes into force.
It is important to state that it is a European-wide convention. It requires multilateral and not bilateral arrangements. It requires all the countries to sign up to common disputes procedures. Until it is ratified by all countries it is very difficult to bring the measure into being.
However, the amendment would prevent us from making third country removals under the provisions of the Bill until the Dublin Convention comes into force. The convention will not come into force until two months after it has been ratified by all the original signatories. We cannot say when that will take place. The terms of the convention require us to follow certain procedures, jointly agreed by all the countries following ratification by all the countries, in conjunction with the third country which we believe responsible for considering a specific case. We could not expect countries such as France to follow the Dublin Convention's procedural requirements before that convention is in force.
In effect, Amendment No. 36 would put on hold third country removals indefinitely until the Dublin Convention came into effect. Ratification has already been delayed for six years and there is absolutely no telling how much longer it will take. For that reason, the amendment is completely unacceptable to the Government.
Lord Dubs: Before the Minister sits down, may I ask her a question? I heard what she had to say. What will be the position, when the Dublin Convention is signed and ratified and comes into force, for individuals whom we send from Britain to one of the EU countries? Will the provisions be under the Dublin Convention or under Clause 2? They are different, for the reasons I stated earlier.
Baroness Blatch: We do not believe that they are incompatible. Under the provisions of the Dublin Convention the United Kingdom would consult with the authorities of the member state that was responsible for considering a particular asylum claim. The United Kingdom would provide the third country with evidence which suggested that that country was responsible for considering the asylum claim: for example, travel tickets indicating that the applicant had indeed been in that country before arriving in the United Kingdom. The third country would indicate whether or not it agreed with the United Kingdom's claim and assessment that it was responsible for considering the claim. If the third country then agreed that it was the state responsible for considering the

1585
claim, it would be obliged under the Dublin Convention to take the applicant back. The process will not always be as smooth-running as that. There may be occasions when that is disputed. Then, under the Dublin Convention, common arrangements would be agreed for the resolution of disputes.
Baroness Elles: Perhaps I may just confirm, and ask my noble friend the Minister to confirm also, that under the third pillar work is going on to achieve minimum standards for the reception of asylum seekers. Although the Dublin Convention is mentioned—as my noble friend more than correctly said, it is not yet fully ratified and has not come into force—the effect of this joint action on the minimum conditions for the reception of asylum seekers might fill the gap in the meantime. I accept, as my noble friend says, that this amendment is totally irrelevant to international legal obligation at the moment.
Baroness Blatch: My noble friend is absolutely right. Certainly discussions are going on under the third pillar. We shall continue under that pillar to have the greatest possible degree of co-operation between countries. It could not quite match up to the full terms of the Dublin Convention. When it is fully ratified, the signatories to it will agree the procedures commonly between them.
I must apologise for not returning to the question raised by my noble friend Lord Brentford. I hope that by now he has gathered that we are talking about European Union member states that are subject to the Dublin Convention.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: Before the noble Baroness concludes her remarks, following the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, can she give the Committee any idea at all as to how long it is likely to be before the Dublin Convention is ratified? If she cannot do that, will she at least give us an assurance that Her Majesty's Government are doing everything they can within the third pillar to persuade other EU member states to sign? She mentioned in particular the Netherlands and Ireland.
Baroness Blatch: That is an important point. I give the noble Baroness an absolute assurance that we are anxious that the two final countries ratify the agreement. I hope the noble Baroness will accept that I am giving an honest reply to her question. The difficulty in regard to Ireland coincided with the change of government, and therefore it is our understanding that the convention may be signed quite quickly by Ireland.
In regard to the Netherlands the situation is more difficult. It is looking for more centrality of the European Court of Justice, and that is not agreed by the other member states. The issue between the Netherlands and other states is more fundamental and may take longer to resolve.
Lord Dubs: I thank the Minister for her detailed answers to the various points and in particular her detailed explanation of the Dublin Convention. It seemed to meet many of the concerns expressed in this and other amendments. All we can do is hope that the
1586
Dublin Convention will come into force quickly. Then we should have assurances that we failed to achieve in relation to earlier amendments. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 37:
Page 3, line 14, at end insert ("and
() that the person who has made a claim for asylum does not have close ties or connections with the United Kingdom.").
The noble Lord said: I shall be brief. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that an asylum seeker is not returned under the safe third country rule if he or she has close ties or connections with the United Kingdom. My experience of dealing with individual refugees and refugee matters has been that it is sometimes very painful for individual asylum seekers to find that one member of the family has found safety in one country and they themselves are in another country, and that it is extremely difficult for the two to be able to live together because neither of the states will allow it. Or, rather, I should say that it is my experience that our Government have been more reluctant to allow such movements than perhaps have some other European governments.
On this specific amendment, it is simply a matter of saying that it is surely wrong in principle to remove a person who has well-established, close ties in this country to another country where he might have no ties or no connections. For example, there might be relatives here; the individual might have had part of his education in this country; he might speak English; and he might be qualified for particular occupations or jobs in this country, and so on—all of which would make it sensible to allow such an individual to stay here.
The number of times that it may happen would not be very many. It would not breach the principles of the government legislation but it would represent a little humanity and common sense in dealing with individuals who are close to this country and who would therefore settle well if given the chance to do so. I beg to move.
10.15 p.m.
Earl Russell: Last January I listened to the Secretary of State in another place moving the regulations to deprive asylum seekers of benefit. He was asked how they would live without it. He replied that they could rely on family members and members of their own community in this country. Whether or not that is a satisfactory or sufficient answer, it is clearly convenient to the Secretary of State. It is a convenience of which he will deprive himself and of which other national governments will deprive themselves unless the principle of allowing family members and close relatives to come together is accepted. It is the kind of arrangement which it would be extremely helpful to have done by international agreement.
The point made by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, about families separated by finding refuge in different countries is a real one. The noble Baroness may just possibly recall some correspondence that we had a few

1587
months ago concerning an Iraqi couple. The woman had found refuge in this country and the man had found refuge in Denmark. The couple had subsequently divorced but he wished to maintain access to his children. In fact, it was extremely difficult to persuade the Home Office that he was not trying to do it in order to become an immigrant to this country. For example, it was necessary to point out that he enjoyed a far higher level of benefits in Denmark than he did here.
That kind of case gives rise to an immense amount of work. I am sure the noble Baroness is aware that the Home Office machinery for dealing with immigration and asylum cases is heavily loaded. It would seem to me to make sense to do something which would take some of the weight off it. I do not see why people should not be allowed to settle in a country where they have relatives, perhaps know the language, can put down roots, get work and flourish rather than in a country where they would be fish out of water.
At Second Reading I put to the noble Baroness a case to which I have not yet had an answer. I should like to have one. Let her imagine the unimaginable—the unthinkable—situation, of her needing to be a refugee from this country. Imagine that she wishes to go to Australia, where she perhaps has a son or daughter living, but because the plane touched down at Dubai, she is required to live the rest of her life in Dubai. That would be a rather silly arrangement. It would be much better to let her go to where she would be at home.
Therefore, the principle of allowing family members to be united is not only humane; it is also, in the end, for the administrative convenience of the governments concerned. I very much hope that it will be adopted.
Lord Hylton: This is another important amendment and it may be helpful to the Committee if I quote a substantive part of a written parliamentary reply signed by the Minister and dated 27th March. It said:
"The Secretary of State will normally decide to consider a case substantively [that is, on its merits] if the applicant's spouse or unmarried minor child is in the United Kingdom, or, if the applicant is an unmarried minor child, the applicant's parent is in the United Kingdom. In addition, discretion is exercised according to the merits of individual cases where the applicant is a parent whose married minor is in the United Kingdom (or vice versa); the applicant is an elderly or otherwise dependent parent; or the family link is not one which would normally be considered but there is clear evidence that the applicant is wholly or mainly dependent on the relative in the United Kingdom and that there is an absence of similar support elsewhere".—[Official Report, 27/3/96; col. WA139.]
I am extremely grateful for that reply. It indicates that the Government attached great importance to the principle of family reunion. I hope that principle will always be borne in mind and will be applied to the maximum possible extent.
Baroness Blatch: The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, has almost made my case for me, but I shall respond fully to the amendment.
The Government believe that it is appropriate, in considering potential third countries, to take into account any evidence of substantial links with the United Kingdom which would make it reasonable for the applicant's claim for asylum to be considered here
1588
on an exceptional basis. But for reasons which I will set out, we do not consider that provision in primary legislation covering ties is either appropriate or necessary.
As has just been said, we already operate a concession under which asylum seekers are not normally removed to a safe third country, but are instead admitted into our own asylum procedures if they have close ties here. The concession and the details of what are regarded as close ties have been published in Butterworths Encyclopedia of Immigration Law and we have no plans to alter it. It may assist the Committee if I set out details of that concession.
Cases are normally considered substantively in the United Kingdom, despite the applicant's arrival via a safe third country, if the applicant's spouse is in the United Kingdom; if the applicant is an unmarried minor and is a parent in the United Kingdom; or the applicant has an unmarried minor child in the United Kingdom. I am glad to reaffirm that. The term "in the United Kingdom" extends beyond people who are present here with leave to enter or to remain. It also covers a person who applied for asylum at the port of entry and who has been granted temporary admission to the United Kingdom while their asylum application is being considered.
Our policy that we do not normally remove an applicant on third country grounds if he or she has a parent, spouse, or dependent minor child present in the United Kingdom, either with valid leave or as an asylum seeker, is fully consistent with the principle of family unity and we exercise our discretion in the applicant's favour in the great majority of cases covered by the concession.
There is a further category of cases where the removal to a third country may be waived according to the merits of the individual case. Cases which fall into that category are as follows: where the applicant is a married minor with a parent in the United Kingdom; the applicant has a married minor child in the United Kingdom; the applicant is an elderly or otherwise dependent parent; or, finally, the family link is not one which would normally be considered but there is clear evidence that the applicant is wholly or mainly dependent on a relative in the United Kingdom and there is an absence of any similar support elsewhere.
Factors which may influence the exercise of discretion in all those cases include language skills—if the applicant is fluent in English but not in the language of a third country—and cultural links with the United Kingdom and the third country. Those are sensible and reasonable criteria to apply on a case-by-case basis. It would be extremely undesirable to transcribe that concession into a binding statutory requirement.
It is not hard to imagine circumstances in which it would be entirely appropriate to remove an applicant to a safe third country even though the applicant may have close ties or connections with the United Kingdom. The Secretary of State must therefore retain the discretion to consider the individual circumstances of each case to determine whether substantive consideration of a claim in the United Kingdom is justified.

1589
Let me give an example. Let us suppose that a non-European Union national committed a criminal offence in another European Union country and then attempted to gain entry to the United Kingdom on asylum grounds to avoid prosecution. Even if the applicant could demonstrate close ties with the United Kingdom, it might well be appropriate to return him to the European Union country rather than consider the asylum claim here. Amendment No. 37 provides no scope for discretion in such matters and would prevent removal in the case I have given as an example.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, invited me to think the unthinkable. Even if I were to think the unthinkable, I would think first of all that I was fleeing for my life—because that is what asylum is about—or from the risk of persecution. I would be jolly thankful to find any safe haven at all. But if that country responded to my request in the way that we respond to requests under the arrangements we have set out, I believe I would be in very good hands.
Lord Dubs: I thank the Minister for her clear explanation of the way in which close family ties and other connections are respected in practice by the Home Office. In the light of that clear and helpful statement, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 38:
Page 3, line 14, at end insert (" and
("() that the person has been afforded the opportunity of speaking by telephone with an authorised representative").
The noble Lord said: This is a very simple amendment and I shall be extremely brief. The purpose of the amendment is to afford an individual who is about to be removed on third country grounds the opportunity of speaking by telephone to an authorised representative, be that a solicitor or other person appropriate for dealing with asylum appeals. If an individual is being removed, he will have the opportunity to establish whether he wishes to pursue an appeal and can set in motion the process before he has left the country.
I appreciate that there will still be difficulties as to whether there will be any support for such an application by his representative here after he has left the country. Perhaps the Minister can comment on that. But, essentially, I am seeking to provide a simple and easy assurance that a telephone conversation at the very least is possible before the individual is removed from the country. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: The effect of this amendment when taken with Amendment No. 44 would be to add an additional certification requirement in third country cases. The Secretary of State would be required to certify that the applicant had been afforded the opportunity to speak by telephone to an authorised legal representative. But the certificate, as set out in Clause 2, is currently designed to cover the safety of the country to which the applicant is to be removed. Access to legal advice and representation is not a matter which ought to be covered by the certificate.
1590
If the United Kingdom is not responsible for considering an applicant's asylum claim, then, for the reasons I indicated earlier, our objective must be to remove him as quickly, albeit as sensibly, as possible. In cases where removal is to a European Union country, we do not accept—again for the reasons I have made clear—that the appeal process should be able to begin while the applicant is still in the United Kingdom because there is no reason to doubt that it can be initiated upon arrival in a European Union country. It is for that reason that Clause 3 of the Bill, to which we shall pass shortly, provides that an applicant cannot bring or pursue an appeal while he is in the United Kingdom.
However, I am happy to give an assurance that asylum seekers, in respect of whom a certificate has been granted in terms of Clause 2, will be given access to a telephone before removal and will be provided with the telephone numbers of the Immigration Advisory Service and the Refugee Legal Centre, both of which are funded in terms of Section 23 of the 1971 Act to provide advice and assistance in connection with appeals. That is current Immigration Service practice and I am happy to give an assurance that that will continue.
On that basis I hope that it will not be necessary to press the amendment. As I explained earlier, and I need not repeat it considering the time of the evening, there is no practical reason why legal aid cannot be made available to applicants who are abroad nor is there any good practical reason why they cannot receive such legal advice and assistance as is necessary to bring forward an appeal. Clearly, it may be more difficult to do so than if one is resident in London and has the opportunity of going backwards and forwards to a solicitor's office or to a legal centre as often as one wishes. But the Government are satisfied that it can be done from these countries and for these reasons I invite the Committee to reject both these amendments.
10.30 p.m.
Lord Hylton: If the Government are prepared to allow applicants to make telephone calls to these two quangos, which do valuable and much appreciated work on behalf of applicants, why will they not extend that principle to a solicitor or a barrister if the applicant has one already?
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: I am not excluding the possibility that when access is given to the telephone it can be used to telephone the solicitor or counsel or whoever the applicant is already in touch with. What I am objecting to and the reason why these amendments are opposed, is the proposal that that should become part of the certification procedure. I venture to suggest that that is a different matter from giving access to the telephone. Once one has that, one can ring whoever one wishes, but, for people who have no legal advice already, the telephone numbers of the two quangos which have been referred to will be provided. I hope that that will be accepted as a reasonable means of

1591
making contact between the applicant who has been made subject to a condition and whose removal is imminent.
Lord Dubs: Before the Minister sits down, may I put one further question to him? Assuming, as he says, that the Government will facilitate such a telephone conversation with a lawyer or a person from IAS or the refugee legal centre, if the case is complicated and the adviser believes that the matter cannot be fully resolved on the telephone, will the Government make it possible for a meeting to take place between the adviser and the asylum seeker before the latter is removed?
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: The point raised by the noble Lord is a valid one. I shall take instructions on it. However, I am in a position to say—and this will come as no surprise to the Committee—that if it is clear that an application for judicial review is imminent, then to avoid any embarrassment and inhumanity, some delay will be allowed to allow the application for leave for judicial review to be made. If that is granted, then in practical terms that has the effect of staying removal until the case has been heard by the High Court.
As regards guaranteeing that there will be sufficient delay to allow a lawyer of an applicant's choice to attend on the applicant, and although I can understand why the point has been made, at present I am not in a position to give such an assurance, but I shall take instructions on it.
Lord Dubs: The Minister has certainly met the issue part of the way by saying that he will take instructions on it and will consider it further. On that basis I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 39 not moved]
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis moved Amendment No. 40:
Page 3, line 16, leave out from ("State") to end of line 17.
The noble Lord said: This amendment stands in the names of my noble friends Lord McIntosh and Lord Dubs and in that of the noble Earl, Lord Russell. I should declare at once that I am a president and former chairman of the Refugee Council.
We are seeking to ensure that only European member state countries will be considered safe third countries for the purposes of those not entitled to an in-country right of appeal. The mischief, as we see it, in the Bill as it stands in this regard is that it would be open to the Secretary of State to add other countries—whatever countries he saw fit—to the list, allowing removal without an in-country right of appeal. Unsafe countries could thus be added, but Parliament would have absolutely no right to comment before the additions to the list were made, resulting in removals without a prior right of appeal. That is a serious situation. In fact, the Government took a position previously and succumbed to pressure which moved them away from that position in another place. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees also criticised the Government. Although they have retreated from their
1592
original position, there is absolutely no assurance that they would not revert to that stance either in part or in whole once the Bill is enacted.
I want to ask the Minister why there is a need for a list of safe countries at all. The fact is that 95 per cent. of all current cases involve return to EU member states, so we are left with the remaining 5 per cent. Does that really justify a special list?
The Refugee Legal Centre and UNHCR undertook a certain amount of research into that situation and an analysis of the 736 safe third countries determined between September 1994 and December 1995. The few non-EU member states to which the Home Office proposed removal numbered only 10, involving a very small number of cases. In two-thirds of cases, the certificate that the removal to the country was safe was overturned by a special adjudicator. I repeat: why do we need a special list?
The Lord Advocate referred earlier to the fact that he doubted whether Switzerland could possibly be regarded as other than a safe country, but in fact we have cases where the special adjudicators overturned two-thirds of the decisions involving return to Switzerland. I repeat: is there any purpose in having a safe list? I beg to move.
Earl Russell: I rise briefly to clarify the procedure that is involved in the designation. The provisions state "by order". As I understand it, they do not state "by statutory instrument", so it is my understanding that there is no parliamentary control over the operation of this.
This is an argument about delegated powers, which the noble Baroness and I have had so many times that we could do it in our sleep. I assure her that I am not asking her to do that. The noble Baroness will, of course, invoke flexibility. I point out that her flexibility is everybody else's inflexibility. However, I am deeply grateful for her concession on this in the course of moving Amendment No. 1 a week ago. Would it be in the spirit of that concession to make some concession to an expression of parliamentary opinion that the designation of a particular country was not, in fact, desirable? Would the Government pay attention to that if it happened? If they would, it would relieve me greatly.
Baroness Blatch: I find this debate extraordinary from noble Lords who have taken such a close interest in the Bill. First, the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, is actually wrong. I know that he has not been present throughout all our discussions on the Bill. The Secretary of State cannot, simply on a whim, add a country to the list. There is no way in which he can do that. That is done by Parliament under the negative resolution procedure. The noble Lord can see from the next amendments which stand in my name that,
"The first order under this section shall not be made unless a draft of the order has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament",
and that,
"A statutory instrument containing a subsequent order under this section shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament".
That is a fundamental misunderstanding.

1593
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, referred to a concession that I had made in debating Clause 1. I noted his excitement about what I had said. I was simply reminding the Committee that when an order came before the House under the affirmative resolution procedure it had to take a view upon it. If for some reason it was believed that that order was not fit to be approved, it would be for the House to take that view, whether in whole or part. The noble Earl knows that it is not possible to amend the order on the Floor of the House. It would be a matter of rejecting or accepting the order.
We have taken the power to extend non-suspensive appeals to non-European Union countries. There are some countries outside the European Union which have proven and highly developed asylum procedures. It is not sensible that an asylum seeker should be able to delay removal by disputing the safety of Switzerland, for example, any more than it is sensible for an applicant to be able to delay removal by disputing the safety of a European Union member state. The Government believe that an out-of-country appeal is an adequate safeguard for asylum seekers who are to be returned to countries with highly developed and proven asylum procedures. That will be the key criterion for designation under Clause 2. The United States, Switzerland, Norway and Canada meet that condition. Those four countries are candidates for designation under Clause 2.
We will use the designation power under Clause 2 sparingly. We may wish to extend non-suspensive appeals to a country such as Australia (to which the noble Earl was anxious to send me a few moments ago) if we begin to receive asylum applicants who have travelled via that country. But we would not want to use the power under Clause 2 to extend non-suspensive appeals to countries which did not have proven asylum procedures. We do not envisage that we will make frequent additions to the list of countries to which applicants may be removed without a suspensive right of appeal.
I defend my right honourable friend. He is not up to any mischief. It is for Parliament to decide whether or not to add other countries to the list.
Lord Avebury: Does that mean that the Minister's colleagues have no intention of adding Dominica to the list? Although I have tried to probe this matter on several occasions, the noble Baroness has not given me a direct answer. I do not think anybody can say that Dominica has highly developed and proven asylum procedures; yet, as the noble Baroness will concede, the Government recently attempted to send someone to that country. I think that we should be told more about those countries it is intended to add to the list, apart from those already mentioned. If those are the only four countries that the Secretary of State has in mind, we know exactly where we are, but if we give him an open-ended power to add whatever countries he sees fit to add in future, even though it is to be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, it will confer far too wide a power on him, bearing in mind the conduct that he has exhibited in other cases in the past.
1594
I also take this opportunity to ask the noble Baroness why this subsection, if it were to be amended in the manner suggested, would refer to a member state and not a member state of the European Union. Was it the intention of the draftsman that one should be left to guess whether "member state" meant a member of the European Union, the United Nations, the OSCE or any other multi-lateral organisation of which Britain was a member?
Baroness Blatch: To deal with the final point raised by the noble Lord, my understanding is that it is quite common in legislation to refer to member states. It assumes that they are members of the European Union and not any other group. I refer to the European Communities Act 1972. I am saying that it is normal, and it is assumed that it is EU members and not members of any other grouping.
I have to return to what is being said glibly in the debate: references to the Home Secretary having a wide open power to use as he wishes. He does not. But of course the power in the Bill to add additional countries continues. It will be, if my amendments are accepted, for Parliament to take a view. We have no plans to add Dominica to the list. I have given the number of countries that we consider, but I cannot say that Dominica would not at some future time be a candidate for the list. We have no plans to add Dominica to the list. I have given the number of countries that we envisage. I have said also that we would not wish to add to the list frequently.
10.45 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: With respect, the Minister has not answered the point I made. She has said that the Government have kindly agreed to introduce an amendment, to which we shall be coming in a moment, so that a statutory instrument will have to be approved by both Houses of Parliament. I understand that. But, as we know, the difficulty in dealing with subordinate legislation of this kind is that the Government are unlikely to be at any risk.
I repeat the question I posed earlier. In the light of the evidence that exists, why do we need to have this list of safe third countries? I shall give the Minister chapter and verse now. I thought that she had known about the situation. Let me go over the research that was undertaken to which I referred earlier. The only non-EU member states to which the Home Office proposed removal were: Bulgaria, two cases (0.3 per cent. of the sample); Czech Republic, two cases (0.3 per cent.); Kenya, 20 cases (2.7 per cent.); Romania, one case (0.1 per cent.); Tanzania, three cases (0.4 per cent.); Canada, one case (0.1 per cent.); Hong Kong, one case (0.1 per cent.); Norway, one case (0.1 per cent.); Switzerland, six cases (0.8 per cent.)—I have referred

1595
earlier to what happened in some of the Swiss cases—and the USA, eight cases (1.1 per cent.). It is almost a case of de minimis, is it not?
Baroness Blatch: I do not know why the noble Lord is running through a list of countries which have not featured in my thinking as candidates for the list.
Lord Clinton-Davis: They are non-EU member states.
Baroness Blatch: I have given the countries that we have it in mind to add. I have also said that it will be for Parliament, through the normal procedures, to determine whether countries are added to the list. The noble Lord asked me why we need a safe third-country principle in the first place. We know that noble Lords opposite did not like Clause 1. We now know that they are pretty unhappy with the principle of a safe third country in Clause 2. I am at a loss as to how noble Lords can at any time profess to be broadly in favour of the Bill. It is becoming pretty clear that noble Lords opposite are not in favour of the Bill.
Perhaps I may answer the direct question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis. It is an internationally accepted principle that asylum seekers should seek the protection of the first safe country that they reach. In general, we do not consider that applicants should be able to pick and choose their preferred country of refuge. Where there is evidence that an applicant travelled through another safe country en route to the UK, that person's asylum application may be refused without the substantive merits of the asylum claim being considered. They may be removed to the third country, in which they can then apply for asylum. That principle has operated for many years.
We have created Clause 2 which gives a non-suspensive appeal right to a person coming from one of those countries which will be designated. The noble Lord is looking awfully bored. I have been here for very much longer than he has. I have to stay the pace, so I hope that he will at least hear me out while I answer his questions.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I have said nothing.
Baroness Blatch: It was the body language to which I was referring.
Lord Clinton-Davis: Body language? I was looking at my noble friend.
Baroness Blatch: The Government have created a non-suspensive appeal right. We have restricted it so far to EU member states. We have given an indication that we intend to consider additional countries. I have named which they are likely to be. I have said that we do not envisage using the measure frequently. I believe that it is a power that should be included in the Bill. I hope that the Committee will accept it.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I suppose that body language is definitively out in this Chamber. If I see any Members of the Committee engaging in body language I shall
1596
create a scene, I promise! There is to be no body language here. However, there is discontent and the Minister has not answered the point that I raised. We are dealing with a situation which is plainly de minimis in terms of the evidence. I have a high personal regard for the Minister, as she knows, but that does not stop me criticising her on a matter of substance. Body language or not, the Minister has not dealt with the evidence, which is plain, and I have a feeling that she is not going to deal with it tonight. Am I right or wrong?
Baroness Blatch: Read the body language!
Lord Clinton-Davis: She is not going to deal with it. I am not satisfied with the response but I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 41:
Page 3, line 17, at end insert ("by statutory instrument").
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 41, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 42. Unless the noble Earl, Lord Russell, has any objection, in order to save time I shall refer to his Amendments Nos. 42A and 42B.
Earl Russell: On this occasion I shall not move my amendments.
Baroness Blatch: In that case, I shall speak to my own amendments. I have already explained to the Committee that we are taking the power to extend non-suspensive appeals to non-European countries because there are some countries outside the European Union which have proven highly developed asylum procedures. We have considered carefully the report of the Select Committee on the scrutiny of delegated powers. We have accepted its recommendation that the initial order designating safe third countries to which applicants may be returned without a suspensive right of appeal should be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. Government Amendments Nos. 41 and 42 give effect to that recommendation. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 42:
Page 3, leave out lines 18 to 20 and insert—
("() The first order under this section shall not be made unless a draft of the order has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.
() A statutory instrument containing a subsequent order under this section shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.").
The noble Baroness said: I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 42A and 42B, as amendments to Amendment No. 42, not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 43 to 45 not moved.]
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3 [Appeals against certificates under section 2]:
[Amendment No. 46 not moved.]
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch moved Amendment No. 47:
Page 4, line 18, at end insert—
("() Paragraph 29 of Schedule 2 to the 1971 Act (grant of bail pending appeal) shall have effect as if the references to appeals under sections 13(1), 15(1)(a) and 16 of that Act included references to appeals under this section.").
The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 47 will provide bail rights to detained applicants awaiting a third country appeal under Clause 3. Under the Government's original proposals for strengthening our third country procedures, all appeals against removal to a third country would have been exercisable only from abroad. But we looked further at that point in the Bill and decided that it would normally be appropriate to retain an in-country right of appeal if the applicant were to be removed to a third country outside the European Union. The Bill was amended in another place to give effect to that decision.
Bail rights are linked to appeal rights. Detained asylum seekers awaiting an appeal on third country grounds under the 1993 Act already have the right to apply for bail. When all third country appeals were going to be exercisable only from abroad, there was no need to extend bail rights to cover appellants exercising the new right of appeal under Clause 3 of this Bill. But now that it is possible that there will be some appellants detained in the United Kingdom pending a Clause 3 appeal, we need to extend bail rights to such people. Amendment No. 47 does that. It is consistent with the Government's general approach of ensuring that asylum seekers detained pending an appeal have the right to apply for bail. I commend it to the Committee.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: On Second Reading we welcomed the extension of bail rights and we welcome this further extension.
Lord Hylton: I also very much welcome this extension to bail in principle. However, will the Minister give an assurance that bail will not be set so high as to be completely beyond the means of the people in question?
Baroness Blatch: The granting of bail is not a matter for me as a politician or a Minister. It would be a matter for the authorities.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Dubs Lord Dubs moved Amendment No. 48:
After Clause 3, insert the following new clause—
ADJUDICATOR'S RECOMMENDATION
(".—(1) In Schedule 2 to the 1993 Act, after paragraph 3 there shall be inserted the following paragraphs—
"3A. Where a special adjudicator confirms a refusal, variation, decision or directions against which a person has appealed on the grounds mentioned in subsections (1) to (4) of section 8 of this Act, he shall determine forthwith whether there are other circumstances which, in his opinion, justify allowing the person to enter or not requiring the person to leave the United Kingdom.
3B. If a special adjudicator determines that there are such circumstances, he shall direct that the Secretary of State shall grant leave for the person to enter the United Kingdom if he has not already been granted such leave and to remain in the United Kingdom for as long as those circumstances shall continue to exist."
1598
(2) In paragraph 4(1) of Schedule 2 to the 1993 Act, after the words "section 8 of this Act", there shall be inserted the words "and paragraph 3A of this Schedule".").
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this amendment is to enable an adjudicator to allow appeals for compassionate reasons. Under the current rules, an adjudicator can allow an appeal only if he finds that the appellant is a refugee as defined by the 1951 convention. An adjudicator cannot allow an appeal if the applicant qualifies to stay here under any other international treaty; for example, the European Convention on Human Rights. Nor can an adjudicator allow an appeal if he believes that the appellant is likely to suffer or even be killed if removed but not for a convention reason or if the adjudicator believes that the appellant should be allowed to remain here for compassionate reasons; for example, ill health.
In such circumstances, the only power that an adjudicator has is to make a recommendation to the Home Office and the Home Office is not obliged to follow such a recommendation. If this amendment were to be passed, the adjudicator would have greater powers to allow appeals on compassionate grounds on the lines that I have stated. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: Amendment No. 48 would represent a fundamental and, I have to say, unwelcome departure from the existing role of the special adjudicator. Responsibility for the exercise of discretion outside the Immigration Rules in individual cases rests with the Secretary of State: this amendment would go against that principle. It would in effect give special adjudicators at large powers to grant exceptional leave and would mean that we would be obliged to accept any recommendation from a special adjudicator that exceptional leave be granted. That would be wrong in principle.
Another reason why we consider this amendment unacceptable is that it overlooks the fact that the question of whether exceptional leave should be granted is already built into the initial consideration process. Anyone refused asylum has had the case for exceptional leave fully examined. It is only if the adjudicator's recommendation arises from exceptional compassionate circumstances which have not previously been considered, and which would merit the exercise of discretion outside the Immigration Rules, that we would be likely to consider accepting such a recommendation. We believe that this is a perfectly reasonable policy for the Government to follow. I therefore urge the Committee to resist this amendment.
11 p.m.
Lord Dubs: I hear what the Minister says. Of course, given the fact that exceptional leave to remain is a discretion exercised by the Home Secretary, it is perhaps worth commenting that the proportion of all asylum claims granted ELR dropped very rapidly. Speaking from memory, some three or four years ago the figure for those granted ELR was something like 60 per cent. but it is now down to about 20 per cent. Therefore, there has been a rapid drop. As ELR is a discretionary status, it is clear that the Home Office has deliberately sought

1599
to reduce the number of persons getting exceptional leave to remain simply by administrative decision. That explains why there has been such a sharp drop in the number of persons allowed to stay in this country.
That was a dramatic drop and was engineered by the Government. I had hoped that the amendment would, as it were, prove a better basis for granting ELR by allowing the adjudicator to allow specific appeals on grounds for which the Government normally grant ELR. However, I see that the Government are not to be persuaded and so I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon The Lord Bishop of Ripon moved Amendment No. 49
After Clause 3, insert the following new clause—
YOUNG UNACCOMPANIED ASYLUM SEEKERS
(".—(1) This section applies to a child who arrives or is present in the United Kingdom unaccompanied by a parent, adult relative, guardian or other adult who assumes responsibility for the child, provided that the child has made an application for asylum in the United Kingdom or has expressed a fear of return to his country of origin or country of habitual residence.
(2) If a doubt arises as to whether any such child is or is not under the age of 18 years, such child shall be regarded as being under the age of 18 years unless the Immigration Officer is able to prove to the contrary.
(3) No child who arrives or is present in the United Kingdom unaccompanied by a parent, adult relative, guardian or other adult who assumes responsibility for the child shall be deported, removed from or required to leave the United Kingdom unless adequate arrangements exist for the child's reception and care in the country to which it is intended he should be sent.").
The right reverend Prelate said: With this amendment we return to the question of the determination of age. I should like to make a few points in that connection. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, and I had an exchange about X-rays. The difficulty that we are in at present is that those children whose age is subject to question have a choice: they can either remain in detention with adults, or they can undergo the X-ray process to which the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, took such exception. Faced with that choice, it is difficult for them to make such a decision.
As I understood him, the noble Lord, Lord Winston, said that any determination of age would be liable to some degree of uncertainty; indeed, I believe that he mentioned something like two years as the possible extent of that uncertainty. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, also mentioned the possibility of having a panel of paediatricians. I wonder whether the Minister would be willing to consider a proposal for such a panel to be established. There is, of course, no such panel at present. It is clear that children whose age is the subject of dispute are in very considerable difficulty. We have already given an account of the numbers of such children and the situations in which they find themselves. Therefore, it seems clear that we need to find some way of resolving the matter. I wonder whether the suggestion of such a panel would be acceptable, given the fact that there will be a degree of uncertainty. However, that uncertainty will not be so wide as to
1600
make the determination of age totally random. Clearly if you can get it right within two years, you would at least have some idea of whether you are dealing with a 16 year-old or a 20 year-old.
When we debated previous amendments, the Minister spoke about existing policy; indeed, I was most grateful to her for the way in which she did so. It seemed to me that what the noble Baroness was saying did embody the substance of subsection (3) of the amendment. I wonder, therefore, whether she would consider the contents of that subsection to be suitable for inclusion in the Bill. It is quite clear that the Immigration Service is operating its policy with sensitivity. That point has been made both by the Minister of State, Ann Widdecombe, and by the noble Baroness. Does the Minister feel that that part of the amendment would be worthy of consideration? I beg to move.
Viscount Brentwood: I originally wanted to support the amendment in principle, but I believe that my noble friend has answered my concerns about the treatment of young people. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, will write to my noble friend with the details of the youth who has been in and out of detention for two years. I believe that my noble friend shares with me a horror of people under the age of 18 being in detention at all.
It is important that we investigate such situations to ensure that they do not recur. Young people awaiting the determination of an asylum application should not be kept in detention. Perhaps my noble friend could see that they are fostered out while the appeal is pending, I should be much happier with that.
My noble friend answered the questions posed by subsections (2) and (3) of the amendment and I am not sure that anything more is needed. However, I should like a further assurance that we will continue to treat child asylum seekers with the utmost care, and not push them into detention just because an assessor considers that they might be over 18. We have been informed, I think by the Refugee Council, that quite a number of juveniles have been detained because they were originally thought to be over 18 when they were not.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: I apologise that I was not in the Chamber when the noble Viscount started his remarks, but I wish to give him the assurance that I have every intention of writing about the case to the noble Baroness. It troubles me because my understanding is that as of 1st April the young person was still in detention and had been there for a substantial part of the past 18 months. I shall send the details to the Minister.
Baroness David: Despite the careful speech of the noble Baroness in response to the earlier amendment moved by my noble friend Lady Hilton, there are still anxieties about children being detained when they come to this country. So I am happy to support the right reverend Prelate's amendment.
After the sad death of Lady Faithfull earlier this year, I have taken on the job of chairing the all-party Group for Children for the remainder of the Session. I am anxious to follow her example in attempting to improve

1601
the plight of unaccompanied children asylum seekers. I am sure that most Members of the Committee here today will remember the amendment put forward by Lady Faithfull and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman. Members will remember their successful efforts during the passage of the 1993 Asylum Bill through this House, when the noble and learned Lord moved an amendment at Report stage to set up the panel of advisers for unaccompanied refugee children at the Refugee Council. I very much regret that the noble and learned Lord is not here today as he has been seriously ill and, although improving, he will not be back for another week. His help would have been very much to our advantage while discussing these children. His amendment, which was supported on all sides of the House, was won by a large majority, 169 to 114.
The panel, set up and funded by the Home Office, has been highly successful and is working well. The Minister referred to it when she spoke earlier. The panel is very keen for the amendment to be accepted, as it would help in its work and give more power to its elbow. None of us can contemplate the detention of children with equanimity. Nor can we tolerate the removal of children to a country without certainty that they will be adequately cared for when they arrive there. And this does no more than put into law the informal Home Office policy that now exists and which again I spoke to earlier.
The acceptance of this amendment would be a real step forward in the protection of vulnerable children. I hope very much that the Minister can look on it favourably.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: I break my silence for the first time during the Committee stage to say that I too very much hope that the noble Baroness will respond favourably to the amendment. I especially bear in mind the words which she uttered earlier today which I noted, that understanding the need of children is very much the intention of the Government. If she could only display the generosity of that sentiment in regard to this amendment and the next, I should be most grateful, as I am sure would most of the Committee.
Lord Dubs: I support the amendment. I have already declared an interest in the Bill. Until about a little under a year ago, I was director of the Refugee Council. I was director at the time the panel was established. I hope that I played some part in ensuring that it came effectively into operation. I believe that it has been a success. It has done a great deal to protect the rights of unaccompanied refugee children.
The amendment would go one stage further. There can be no one who accepts the principle that children should be detained. I visited Campsfield House a couple of years ago. Children were detained there. I know that children have been detained at other centres run by the Home Office, prisons, and detention centres. It seems to me deplorable that young persons against whom there are no criminal charges, who are perfectly innocent, are being detained on the decision of a Home Office official. No matter how worthy the official, and how
1602
objectively the official seeks to use his or her powers, it seems wrong in principle that anyone should be denied his liberty in this country without a proper judicial process.
The amendment does not deal with that principle, but it provides a safeguard against children being held in detention. I give it my warm support.
Lord Winston: Perhaps I may ask the Committee to take note of one case which has just been drawn to my attention by the refugee legal centre. It illustrates some of the difficult problems with regard to age. An asylum seeker arrived in the UK in December 1994 when he was 15, giving his age as 21. He was held in detention for four months before being granted bail by the independent adjudicator into the care of Hillingdon social services. They accepted that he was a minor under 18.
The Immigration Service has always maintained that he was an adult. The asylum seeker has since been detained twice and is currently in detention as at 1st April 1996. That is despite two reports by independent medical experts. I know both medical experts. One is Dr. Persoff, a consultant fellow of the Royal College of Physicians; the other is Dr. Peter Renton, an expert radiologist whom I have known for many years.
Dr. Persoff reports that both clinically and radiologically the age of this asylum seeker is just now over 17, which accords with his stated age of birth. Dr. Peter Renton reports on his radiology, saying that the distal radial growth plate is on the point of fusing but is not yet totally fused, which would make his age around 17. So there is some congruence on that issue. However, the immigration services still do not believe that the asylum seeker is a minor, and he is being detained in a unit with adults. No special provision is being made for his education. It illustrates the difficulty of this grey area.
Lord Avebury: I am sorry to hear from the noble Lord that radiological techniques are being used for age determination despite the fact that he deprecated them earlier. I ventured to point out earlier that the BMA reached the conclusion that radiological techniques for age determination should not be applied, and that it was incorrect and ethically wrong to use a technique of an invasive nature, as the noble Lord has already pointed out, when there is no clinical necessity for it.
I say this with some regret because the absence of any reliable techniques for age determination was one of the factors which gave rise to the earlier amendment. It is at the centre of the amendment moved by the right reverend Prelate.
I suggested—I still believe that it is a sensible idea—that one should ask paediatricians to express an opinion and, if the Home Secretary wishes, take a majority opinion of several of them if there is doubt.
I warmly support the right reverend Prelate in the third of his paragraphs. If we could get the concessions that the noble Baroness said already exist written into the statute book, it would be highly desirable. Whatever the present Home Secretary may do regarding ensuring that adequate arrangements exist for the child's

1603
reception and care overseas, if it is not a statutory obligation it could always be watered down or eliminated by someone less liberal who occupies the post of Home Secretary in the future. I hope therefore that the noble Baroness will find it possible to do as the right reverend Prelate suggests and incorporate at least subsection (3) in the statute.
11.15 p.m.
Lord Burnham: Is the case to which the noble Lord, Lord Winston, referred in relation to this amendment the same as that referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, on a number of occasions in speaking to this amendment and earlier ones? It seems remarkably familiar.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: I think that is so.
Baroness Blatch: It is very difficult to respond to particular cases. I hope the noble Lord will write to me with the evidence that he cites in the course of this debate. I shall reply fully to him and make any reply I give to either the noble Baroness or the noble Lord available to Members of the Committee who have been interested in the debate.
I have to say to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, that through both these and earlier amendments there is a desire on the part of the Opposition and the right reverend Prelate to put the burden of proof on the Home Secretary. It would seem that, given that the Home Secretary will not have the information that will give the particular age of a person—particularly in the case cited, in which the child himself actually claimed to be another age—that immediately causes a problem. To deny the methodology for determining age seems quite extraordinary and would create a conflict. As the noble Lord knows, I shall oppose the reversal of the burden of proof.
The amendment as worded would apply to any child who had expressed a fear of return, even where that fear was not based on any convention reason. It also confuses the issue of whether a child is a refugee with the issue of whether a child should be removed.
As I set out in great detail earlier, we recognise the potential vulnerability of an unaccompanied asylum seeking child. That is why we have special provisions in the Immigration Rules for handling their cases. Last year we set up a special case working unit to ensure that their applications were given priority and were considered by specialist case workers. That development has been widely welcomed.
During the passage of the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993, my right honourable friend the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State said in another place that the Government would not send an unaccompanied child to another country, whether or not that child had claimed asylum, unless they were satisfied that safe and adequate reception arrangements had been made. I am happy to repeat that commitment today. Any return of an unaccompanied child is arranged by negotiation with those responsible for his or her care.
1604
The Government's view is that where a child has no claim to refugee status it is normally right that he or she should be returned to their own family, community and culture. That is consistent with UNHCR guidelines which emphasise the importance of family unity.
If a child has no claim to refugee status but we cannot be satisfied about reception arrangements, then we grant the child exceptional leave to remain. But the decision whether to return a child must be made after the child's asylum application has been considered.
The amendment as worded would apply to any child who had expressed a fear of return, even where that fear, as I said, was not based on any convention reason; it is therefore open to abuse. While we sympathise with the sentiments behind the amendment, we cannot agree that it would add anything to our present safeguards for unaccompanied children.
Amendment No. 49 also deals with disputes over the age of an applicant. As I have already explained, the Immigration Rules define an asylum seeking child as a person who is under 18 years of age or who, in the absence of documentary evidence, appears to be under that age. This amendment would reverse the current position and require the Secretary of State to demonstrate that a claimed age for which there was no evidence was incorrect. I explained in relation to other amendments why it is right that the burden of proof should remain with the applicant.
To return to the statistics I gave on this point earlier, the vast majority of applicants are 16 or 17. It seems to me that if somebody claims to be 16 or 17—indeed, if somebody older than 18 claims to be 16 or 17—in order to enjoy the more generous provisions, it is incumbent upon somebody to prove that that is his (or her) age. That is the case of the person who I understand from what has been said had claimed to be 24 when in fact that person was only 15, 16 or 17.
The right reverend Prelate asked me a particular question. We are prepared to look at any evidence submitted on behalf of the applicant as to the applicant's age. That can include medical evidence and indeed any evidence that would substantiate the age that is claimed. But we see no need for setting up a new mechanism for that purpose.
Let me also say to the right reverend Prelate, who referred to a statutory reference to reception arrangements, that we believe that such a measure is unnecessary. It would address a non-existent problem. No one—certainly no one speaking in the debate today, now or earlier—suggested that our approach to ensuring reception arrangements in the receiving country is anything other than scrupulous. We have never been found wanting in that regard. I therefore hope that the amendment will not be accepted.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: I am a little disappointed that the Minister is not willing to look a little more favourably on the amendment, especially in view of the widespread view in this House that, although our practice is good, it would be even better were it enshrined in statute. Clearly, I shall withdraw the amendment, but I hope that the noble Baroness will be willing to consider

1605
the matter a little further. We shall return to this matter on Report. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 50:
After Clause 3, insert the following new clause—
REFERRAL OF CHILDREN TO PANEL OF ADVISORS
(". Where a person is, or appears to be, or alleges that he is, under the age of 18 years and expresses a fear of return to his country of origin, it shall be the duty of those statutory services who are aware of his circumstances to refer him to the Refugee Council Panel of Advisors for Unaccompanied Refugee Children, unless the child objects to such a referral.").
The noble Baroness said: The amendment stands in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton. It would ensure that all statutory authorities that became aware of the circumstances of an unaccompanied refugee minor would have a duty to refer that child to the Refugee Council's panel of advisers for unaccompanied refugee children.
We are still dealing with children but also with a new point. On the last amendment, I explained about setting up the panel of advisers and how it was agreed. In fact it opened in 1994. Since then it has received just over 1,000 referrals. Currently, it is headed by a co-ordinator who runs a team of 29 advisers. Last year, the National Institute of Social Work conducted an evaluation of the panel and found that it met all its stated objectives. The Home Office has agreed funding. Indeed, it has increased the funding. Local authorities agree that the panel has been a help to them in their work, and more importantly, refugee children have found that there is someone at hand to help them through a bewildering asylum process and ensure access to those services to which they are entitled. In short, the panel has been a success.
The majority of cases are referred to the panel by the Immigration Nationality Department of the Home Office. There have, however, been many cases where a child who had entered the UK has not been immediately or promptly referred to the panel. That may be because he (or she) has not claimed asylum, even though the child fears to return to its country. In such cases, a child may enter the country without claiming asylum and may subsequently be referred to a social services department as being unaccompanied and without a carer; or it may come to the attention of social services or the local education authority that a child unaccompanied by its parents is being cared for in an informal arrangement with members of the child's community.
Social services departments may be more concerned with providing care to a child than sorting out the child's immigration status, which may be a lengthy process and will depend on gaining the trust of the child, who will have to explain how it reached the UK, its reasons for travelling and how long it had been here when the social services department intervened. It is important, though, that children who are in fear of returning home should make a prompt application for asylum and should benefit from the Refugee Council's expertise and an independent adviser's support in the process right from the start. The amendment seeks to ensure that that is
1606
the case by ensuring that all such children are promptly referred to the panel, regardless of the point at which they claim asylum.
I have a number of examples—not referred to before—bearing out my argument. I will just state one. A 16 year-old boy from Zaire was referred to the panel in January 1996, though he arrived in the UK in 1994. He had been looked after by a local authority and was placed with foster parents. At the time of referral his immigration status was unclear; indeed, the reason for referral was to seek the assistance of the panel in establishing his status. The adviser arranged legal representation and accompanied the young man to the Home Office so that the question of his status could be resolved. He further liaised with the social services department so that he could be referred for some much needed counselling.
That case outlines just one example where the panel received referrals. It is anxious to help with the difficulties because we do not want children remaining illegally. They may have come as a visitor and over-stayed, but they are therefore here illegally and it is important that someone helps them properly to establish their status. The amendment is simple and would probably not involve many children. It would be a great help and the panel is keen for the amendment to be accepted. I hope it will be. I beg to move.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: Perhaps I may say a few words in support of the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady David. I would have thought that the Government could accept this amendment. I hope that I can have the attention of the noble Baroness.
Baroness Blatch: I apologise to the noble Lord, but I have been concentrating extremely hard on this Bill and every now and again I have to confer with my Whip for information. I hope the noble Lord will forgive me for that.
Lord Henderson of Brompton: Of course I accept the graceful explanation of the noble Baroness—but she is again talking to her noble friend instead of listening to me while I make a few points.
All I wish to say is that the noble Baroness, Lady David, expressed the view of the panel that the reference to the Refugee Council panel of advisers should be as early as possible. The panel has many examples. The noble Baroness gave one. It is too late at night for me to give others. But there is no doubt that the panel is working extremely well. It would work much better if there was a statutory requirement for reference to it of appropriate children to be made early. That is all there is to it. I hope that the noble Baroness will look at the amendment sympathetically.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: I add my support to the amendment. Clearly the panel of advisers which was established during the passage of the 1993 Bill has proved a great success. It met all its stated objectives, as the noble Baroness, Lady David, said. Funding has been agreed for it; local authorities agree that it has been

1607
a help to them, and refugee children themselves find that there is someone at hand to help them through this bewildering process.
There have been cases—indeed, a good many—where children have entered this country but have not been promptly or immediately referred to the panel. That creates difficulties. They may be referred to a social services department which will be more concerned with providing care than with sorting out the immigration status. It is important that the children should have access to the panel of advisers, which has proved itself so well. I hope therefore that the noble Baroness will give favourable consideration to the amendment.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: This appears to me to be precisely the kind of amendment that the Government may feel able to accept. It does not raise questions about bogus applications or about methods of getting around procedures. It is simply an extremely helpful proposal to refer young people to this expert council of advisers. I hope that the Government, who have so far been reluctant to accept amendments, at least on the occasion of today's Committee sitting, will consider doing so.
The amendment would relieve some of the burden of work on the immigration department. It would enable the Refugee Council panel of advisers to make its own judgments about the child and how much he or she might be at risk, and, indeed, perhaps about the precise age of the child. However, the crucial point is that the child would have people to whom he could turn, people whom he could learn to trust and people whose job it would be to try to assist him to resettle in this country, if that were the ultimate outcome of the case. I wonder whether the Minister might not consider accepting what seems to be a wholly helpful amendment and not one that constitutes any clash of ideology or principle.
Lord Hylton: In replying to an earlier amendment the noble Baroness the Minister took exception to the words,
"expresses a fear of return".
One understands her reason for doing so in that she thought that in the context of previous amendments this was too wide. I do not think that objection can be made in the case of this amendment. I say that because, being in a strange country, a child may easily have genuine fears of all kinds. It is such fears that can best be dealt with through the help of the panel of advisers.
I say in passing about the panel that it fulfils the kind of role that is fulfilled in this country in respect of British children by people like the amici curiae or the Official Solicitor. Therefore, the panel of advisers is extremely valuable in ensuring that the child's state of mind and all his personal details are dealt with in an appropriate manner. I hope that the amendment will commend itself to the Government.
11.30 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: I am again somewhat perplexed by the example given by the noble Baroness, Lady David. I hope that she will write to me with details of it. She
1608
said that the child arrived in 1994 and was not referred until 1996. If that is the case, did he arrive as an asylum applicant in 1994? Were the authorities aware of him in 1994 as an applicant for asylum? If that is the case, I am quite puzzled, because my understanding is that child applicants are dealt with almost within hours of arrival. I find it very strange that someone has been in the country for two years without being referred. I would ask the noble Baroness to write to me with details of the case to which she has just referred.
The panel of advisers is a non-statutory body administered by the Refugee Council. The advisers act as friends to unaccompanied children seeking asylum and assist them in their dealings with the Home Office, social services and other agencies. In the last financial year the panel dealt with around 700 children. The panel is valued by all those working with unaccompanied children and has proved to be another positive development in this sensitive area.
Amendment No. 50, as drafted, would extend the services of the panel to children who were here with their families. That is neither necessary nor appropriate. The purpose of having a panel of advisers is to offer help to children who do not have relatives or guardians who can look after their interests. It is entirely right that a child who is with relatives should look to his or her own family for assistance.
The amendment would also place a statutory duty on all the agencies dealing with a child to refer him to the panel. A child asylum seeker is likely to have dealings with several different agencies; for example, education services, health services and, if the child is unaccompanied, social services. It would be unnecessarily complicated and burdensome to require all these bodies to refer a child to the panel. Well over half of all referrals are made in the first instance by the Immigration Service or the Asylum Directorate. That is done extremely speedily after they enter the country. Our special unit dealing with unaccompanied children checks to see whether a new case has been referred, and if there is any doubt it will contact the panel. The Asylum Directorate and the Voluntary Services Unit have regular meetings with the panel to discuss its performance and matters of mutual interest. The current arrangements are working well. We do not know of any complaints about them. The cases which have been raised in the course of this debate really are very strange. We intend to look into them, but we see no need for any change. Therefore, I hope that the amendment will not be pressed.
Baroness David: I thank all those who have spoken in support of the amendment. Quite a number of people have done so and I am very grateful for that. I am very disappointed with the Minister's response. It is the children who have slipped through the net and have not been noticed, about whom we are concerned. I believe that the boy from Zaire had been here since 1994 and he had somehow slipped through the net. His immigration status had not been satisfactorily dealt with. That is the sort of case we do not want to let slip through.

1609
If the wording of the amendment is being criticised, I intend to have it looked at. I shall take the amendment away for the time being. I shall come back with it because it is a very reasonable one which will help a certain number of children who are not referred at the moment and who have slipped through. I am sure that the criticisms of the wording of the amendment will be noted. I shall certainly return at Report stage with a slightly differently worded amendment which will take account of the Minister's response.
I still believe that it is a very disappointing reply. We are asking for a very simple thing which will help the children. The panel is very ready to deal with these situations and to help the children. As I say, I am very disappointed. I shall take the amendment away and see whether I can bring something back which will be more acceptable to the Minister.
Baroness Blatch: I do not know how many times I have said it during the course of the day, but I am surprised that the noble Baroness has not accepted my word that unaccompanied children who apply for asylum are referred to the panel, the social services, education and all the other agencies. Is the noble Baroness actually citing the case of a child entering the country in 1994, seeking asylum and not being referred until 1996? Is she saying that the child slipped through the net? That means that perhaps the authorities were not even aware of the person being in the country. How can the Government possibly respond to a problem which they do not even know is there? The noble Baroness must explain how the child was made known in 1994 and not referred to the panel until 1996.
Baroness David: The point is that they had not applied for asylum. They may have been here.
Baroness Blatch: But we did not know about it.
Baroness David: Indeed, and that is the point. We do not want to have children here on an illegal basis. That is the whole point of the amendment.
Baroness Blatch: If we do not know that they are here, we cannot refer them to any panel, statutory or otherwise. Unless we actually know that they are here, how can any measure in this Bill help?
Baroness David: I am not saying that the Government can do it. In this amendment we are asking the local authority, or whoever knows about them, to refer them to the panel. I am not saying that it is the job of the Home Office because it may not know about this. If the child is with foster parents, or something like that, or in the care of the social services, they must know about it. But they may not have taken the action to give the child proper asylum status. That is what we want to try to put right in this amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis moved Amendment No. 51:
After Clause 3, insert the following new clause—
1610
SECRETARY OF STATE'S ASSESSMENT OF COUNTRY
(" .—(1) The Secretary of State shall make available to any asylum applicant or appellant on request his assessment of the conditions in the country of nationality or habitual residence of the applicant or appellant, provided that in the preceding 12 months at least 50 asylum applications were made by applicants from that country.
(2) Any assessment provided in accordance with subsection (1) shall include information on general political circumstances, on abuses of human rights by the national government or any other person and on the legal system.").
The noble Lord said: We seek here greater transparency on the part of the Secretary of State. We want him to publicise his assessment of conditions in the countries from which asylum seekers originate. I believe that that is a perfectly reasonable thing to expect. The UNHCR sets out in its handbook guidance for the states which interpret the 1951 convention. I shall not quote that because the Minister is very familiar with it. The essence of it is that a knowledge of conditions in the applicant's country of origin is an important element in assessing the applicant's credibility.
The Government made some moves in another place because Ann Widdecombe, the Minister of State at the Home Office, said in Committee (at col. 89 of Hansard on 11th January 1996) that the Government had undertaken to provide Parliament with country briefing papers prepared by the Home Office about conditions in countries which are to be designated. She also said that in deciding whether that fear was well founded, asylum case workers would rely on information provided by the individual and by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and on updated information on the conditions prevailing where the man lived, including on the country in which he lived and the particular geographical area from which he came. That is all very fine.
The problem is that taking, for example, Nigeria, the way in which the Home Office went about its business of assessing the situation was wholly defective. In 1994 the American State Department reported of Nigeria:
"The Government routinely detains human rights monitors, journalists and political opponents throughout the year for publishing statements critical of the government".
Of course, it got much worse than that - with attacks on trade union activists, on political activists and on anybody who criticised the Nigerian Government. Then we had the arrest and ultimately the judicial murder of Ken Saro-Wiwa. At that very time when Ken Saro-Wiwa and his colleagues were being detained, the Home Office, with its all-pervasive wisdom, was telling immigration officials that there was no evidence that Ogonis faced persecution from the Nigerian authorities for membership of MOSOP. That is extraordinary and outrageous. It shows how defective the judgment of the Home Office can be. But perhaps it is not the judgment of the Home Office; it may be the judgment of the Foreign Office. In any event, it is the judgment of the Government and they must face up to that responsibility.
When the matter was raised in another place, the Minister chose not to reply to that point. I believe that it is important that the Government should not only make country assessments in countries to be designated

1611
available, but that they should provide the maximum information in the most public way. The material should be made available not simply to Parliament by putting it in the Library; it should be made available to applicants and appellants so that they can assess how relevant it is. They should be in a position to challenge inaccuracies. That is simply not the case at present.
It is interesting that in a recently published report, commissioned by the Asylum Rights Campaign, a special adjudicator is quoted as having stated in a determination of an asylum appeal:
"In this case the Secretary of State 'understands' that if an individual is not politically active and is only involved in trade unions, he has no reason to fear persecution. I find some difficulty in following that argument and I do not know where he 'understands' it from"—
that is, where the Secretary of State understands it from. I think that we should all like to know where the Secretary of State understands it from.
I have a case at present involving a Nigerian. The Secretary of State says, "I have no reason to believe that this man is at risk", in a situation where he has been actively involved in this country over some years now against the Nigerian Government—against that dictatorship. The Government must be much more frank and open because it can be a matter of life and death. It is not satisfactory for the Government to live in a make-believe world and to say that somehow or other most people are okay in Nigeria and have little to fear. That is not the case. The Secretary of State knows that and I fear that in this respect his conduct has not been up to the highest standards that we expect of a Home Secretary. I beg to move.
11.45 p.m.
Lord Avebury: I support the noble Lord's amendment and underline the fact that the Home Office has, to my knowledge, published only two country assessments. Those assessments relate to Nigeria and Ghana. It would be very helpful if we knew the background to the department's thinking on many other states from which asylum seekers arrive in this country. I am afraid that the knowledge of the Home Office is grossly inadequate. I reach that judgment on the basis of the standard of the replies given by the noble Baroness in the individual country debates held last week. Some of those misstatements have been repeated in a letter from the noble Baroness that I received only this morning. I did not bring the letter with me and I do not read it out. But I remember two statements in particular. One was that the National Human Rights Commission in India had jurisdiction over Kashmir. I had pointed out to her in last week's debate that it was specifically estopped from looking at human rights violations in that territory. The other statement was that the International Committee of the Red Cross had access to places of detention in Kashmir, whereas only recently it had been forced to withdraw. The knowledge of the department as to the situation in that territory is grossly inadequate.
1612
We have already heard about Nigeria from the noble Lord who moved the amendment. We also touched on this matter last week. The Home Office had to withdraw the first instalment of its country assessment on Nigeria when it was heavily criticised, as the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, will remember in a pamphlet published by the Refugee Council under the title Beyond Belief: The Home Office and Nigeria. That contained a long litany of errors and omissions in the Home Office's document, some of which we had already taken up. For example, it was said that the National Consultative Assembly was an elected body for the majority of delegates. It had to be pointed out to the Foreign Office and the Home Office that only 300,000 people voted for the elective seats on the National Consultative Assembly but that a third of the seats were nominated by the military head of state, General Abacha. It was that kind of omission and distortion of the facts which gave a totally misleading impression of the state of human rights in Nigeria and the likelihood that anybody would have to seek asylum from that country. It is not surprising that, given that the wrong impression has been created by the Home Office document, during the first four months of 1996 there has not been a single asylum application from Nigeria accepted in this country. I believe that applicants are entitled to know what is being said about these countries so that they can contest the misstatements of fact and errors by way of omission that lead adjudicators in some cases to reach the wrong decisions.
Earl Russell: The noble Baroness may be well advised to accept the amendment. It may save a great deal of trouble. Should she not accept it, it is my understanding that, if Parliamentary Questions were to be tabled asking for the assessments for each country in turn and severally, the noble Baroness would be bound under the procedure for Questions to Ministers to give answers which did not knowingly mislead the House. It might be tidier and more economical if she accepted the amendment instead.
Baroness Blatch: Does the noble Earl suggest that I have misled the Committee, that I may mislead the Committee or that I would not mislead the Committee?
Earl Russell: None of those matters at all. I simply suggest that the noble Baroness would be under an obligation to answer the Questions.
Baroness Blatch: With or without the amendment, I am under an obligation to answer questions honestly at the Dispatch Box. I believe that I have always done that. I was extremely open with the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, in the point that he raised on country matters on another part of the Bill. I have written to him fully in a letter since then and have no objection to his making that public. I refer in particular to the point raised by the noble Lord on Kashmir. The noble Lord admitted that the Human Rights Commission had been invited to investigate an incident and that it had been an extra-judicial killing. Even that point has been referred to previously.

1613
Asylum seekers often base their claim, at least partly, on allegations of human rights abuses and persecution in their country. Wherever that is a significant issue in the claim, the letter giving reasons for refusal will respond by setting out the Secretary of State's view. That view can then of course be challenged by the applicant on appeal. In addition, we have made available written country briefs on Nigeria and Ghana setting out our assessment of conditions in those countries. Those briefs are available to applicants, representatives and adjudicators.
Furthermore, we have undertaken to provide assessments of all countries we put forward for designation under Clause 1. Those briefs will be provided to Parliament as well as to the appellate authorities and will be available to applicants. Similar briefs on other countries of origin are also planned.
Against that background, I oppose the amendment for two reasons: first, it is unnecessary; and, secondly, it gives unjustified prominence to an issue which should form only one element in the overall consideration of the asylum claim. At present the Secretary of State is under a requirement to consider all matters which are relevant to the asylum claim. In setting out reasons for refusal, he must address any matters which are central to the claim. To the extent that that requires responding to allegations about conditions in the country, the obligation to do so is already here.
But the assumption behind the amendment is that the assessment of general conditions in the country is prescriptive of the decision. That is misguided: each case is considered on its individual merits, taking account of the facts and the circumstances relating to the particular case. An applicant from a country with human rights defects may be at no risk of persecution, and an applicant from a country with a good record may, nevertheless, have a well-founded fear of persecution. In short, the obligation on the Secretary of State should be to give reasons for refusing the application. We see no merit in imposing any requirement beyond that.
Much has been said about Nigeria. I shall say just a word or two about it. The Government of course share the concerns about the human rights record in Nigeria, including the deplorable execution last November of Ken Saro-Wiwa and his eight associates. We are monitoring the complex situation closely with the FCO, but consider that individual Nigerians whose claims have been individually considered and properly determined can be returned under normal immigration procedures. We have no reason to believe that those being returned are facing difficulties. The Home Office disclosable brief on Nigeria was updated in December 1995 to take account of more recent developments, including the execution of Ken Saro-Wiwa. Further updates will be delivered as necessary.
The overall assessment remains that ordinary Nigerian citizens can express their political opinions without fear of persecution. Independent adjudicators overwhelmingly agree with Home Office decisions in
1614
Nigerian cases. The Refugee Council report of 9th October criticising earlier background brief was highly selective. It overlooked the essential point that asylum applications are considered on their individual merits. That is our obligation under international agreements. A full response was sent to the chief executive of the Refugee Council on 15th December 1995.
Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, that the Home Office did not withdraw the Nigerian brief. The first version was made public months before the deplorable execution of Ken Saro-Wiwa and his colleagues. It was entirely right to update the report to take account of those and other relevant events, and that is precisely what happened.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I find that reply mind-bogglingly complacent and indifferent to the realities of the situation within Nigeria. How does the Minister know with certainty that the individual cases with which the Home Office is dealing are people who will not disappear? Does it keep an eye on them? How does it know?
The truth of the matter is that they do not know. How on any reasonable basis could the Government come to the conclusion at which they arrived in 1995 before Ken Saro-Wiwa was killed while under arrest? How could they come to a conclusion which was so markedly different from that of the United States? The fact of the matter is that they misled themselves, quite apart from misleading the country, because they wanted to come to that conclusion.
In the light of all those circumstances, how, realistically, could the Government have reached those conclusions in good faith? Of course, they have an overwhelming desire to ensure that we have as few asylum seekers as possible, so the conclusion is that, if there is any doubt about them, send them back, even to Nigeria.
The Minister says that the amendment is unnecessary. I come to a sharply different conclusion. I believe that there is an obligation on the Committee to press the Government on this point. She says that each case must be decided on its merits. I do not believe that the Government are capable of deciding each of these cases on its merits because they do not know what will happen to these people. She says that such people may by at no risk of persecution. That is far from certain. I believe that the Minister's response is so unsatisfactory that I wish to seek the view of the Committee.
11.56 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 51) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents,12; Not-Contents, 37.

division no.3

contents

Avebury, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Hylton, L.

Dubs, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller]

Ripon, Bp.

Hacking, L.

Russell, E. [Teller.]

1615

Williams of Crosby, B.

Winston, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Kinnoull, E.

Blatch, B.

Lindsay, E

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Liverpool, E.

Brentford, V.

Long, V.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Lucas, L.

Burnham, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Carnock, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Mackay of Clashfern, L. [Lord Chancellor]

Chesham, L. [Teller]

Courtown, E.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Cumberlege, B.

Mountevans, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Northesk, E.

Denton of Wakefield, B.

O'Cathain, B.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Rawlings, B.

Goschen, V.

Shrewsbury, E.

Harlech, L.

Stockton, E.

Henley, L.

Strathclyde, L.[Teller.]

Inglewood, L.

Trumpington, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
12.4 a.m.
Baroness O'Cathain Baroness O'Cathain moved Amendment No. 51A:
Before Clause 4, insert the following new clause—
CARRIERS' LIABILITY
(". In section 1 of the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act 1987, after subsection (2) there shall be inserted—
"(2A) No liability shall be incurred under subsection (1) above in respect of any person who on arrival is granted leave (including limited leave) to enter or remain in the United Kingdom.".").
The noble Baroness said: Before moving this amendment, I should like to express my gratitude to the officials in the Public Bill Office and the Government Whips' Office who have been most kind in rearranging the position of Amendment No. 67 which is now Amendment No. 151A so that I can be absent on Thursday to attend to a sad family matter abroad. I apologise to Members of the Committee who may have been inconvenienced because of that but I am exceedingly grateful for the help and courtesy that I have received.
On Second Reading, I raised anxieties about the operation of the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act 1987. I sought guidance on the scope of the Bill to establish whether I might draw that Act into our debate. I have been advised that the Bill's wording, which includes the words "other connected matters", provides me with such an opportunity. While some may think that the issue I am raising is peripheral to the core concerns raised in the Bill, I believe, nonetheless, that this is an important opportunity to put right a particular injustice.
I had been aware of the broad problems consequent upon the carriers' liability legislation for some time, but my awareness was certainly heightened when I joined the board of British Airways. At this point I must, of course, declare an interest in that respect. However, I can assure Members of the Committee that my concern about the issue is certainly not solely due to the
1616
inconvenience and financial penalty incurred by British Airways, other airlines or even shipping companies. Indeed, the Chamber of Shipping, which represents the ferry industry, supports the amendment. My concern is the fundamental issue of wanting to see justice and fair play done.
My amendment relates to one very specific element of the carriers' liability Act which I will describe later. Members of the Committee may benefit from a brief description of the background to the issue. The Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act requires carriers to pay a charge, as they call it, of £2,000 in respect of any passenger that they bring to the United Kingdom who is carrying incorrect documentation; or, indeed, in some cases, no documentation at all. Documentation seems to go mysteriously missing between the check-in point in the foreign country and the arrival point in the UK.
Carriers accept that responsibility; indeed, most of them employ considerable resources to comply with the requirements. I do not seek to question the expectation of UK Immigration in respect of compliance generally with the Act. However, since Second Reading, I have visited Frankfurt Airport to see for myself the problems created by the legislation. The difficulties that check-in staff encounter in attempting to comply with all the complexities of the legislation are truly mind boggling and, quite honestly, have led me to assert that all staff dealing with the processing of passengers for flights—and, indeed, for sea crossings—to and from the UK are expected, in effect, to act as unpaid immigration officials.
There is also quite a disturbing side to the process. Experience over many years has indicated that illegal immigrants, who, in the overwhelming majority of cases, are actually economic migrants and not genuine political asylum seekers, come from countries where the colour of their skin is different to the majority in this country. Because of many cases where such people have proved to have had incorrect or forged documentation, the check-in staff are doubly wary. They are trained to engage in what is euphemistically called "profiling" in an attempt to avoid causing an offence under the terms of the Act. However, by that very attempt to avoid causing an offence under one Act they are running a huge risk of committing an offence under another; namely, legislation dealing with racial equality.
I have to say that I am most grateful to my noble friend the Minister, who gave me some time a few weeks ago and listened to my explanations regarding the background to my concerns. At our meeting with officials, I was able to expose much of the detail of certain cases; and, indeed, I had a most sympathetic hearing. The purpose of the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act was to reduce the number of passengers arriving in the UK with no proper documentation, indicating in the great majority of cases that they had no right to be here. The airlines and ferry companies had to tighten up their procedures and accept that, if they make an error, they have to face the consequences in terms of fines or charges for detention.
I personally feel that that is harsh. Let us just imagine the stress put upon check-in staff who have to process upwards of 200 passengers in 20 minutes or so. During

1617
the period of each process they have to ensure that tickets and passports are valid and that they meet the seat requirements of those individual passengers. Australia has one stamp and one visa; the United Kingdom has something like 17 different stamps and forms of visa. Coping with passports in Arabic, Chinese, Nigerian, Sri Lankan and so on leads to a huge number of permutations. Six seconds per passenger does not give much time to do all that.
In order to cope with the complexity, British Airways alone has a dedicated department of five full-time staff whose responsibility is to train check-in staff in 80 countries on how to detect forged passports and visas. It is a complex undertaking made even more complex by the fact that in many cases the staff in those countries do not belong to British Airways, they are staff who work for a local monopoly or the handling agency and who do not have the same incentive to ensure that all is correct. This activity alone costs British Airways some half a million pounds per annum. On that basis, the total costs for all airlines and ferry operators bringing passengers to this country could amount to a significant sum.
My amendment addresses immigration expectations under certain very specific circumstances when it actually allows an incorrectly documented passenger to enter the United Kingdom by granting what is called leave to enter or exceptional leave to enter. This normally occurs when incorrect documentation is acknowledged not to be a wilful act of deception. The passenger is in effect given the benefit of the doubt. Under these circumstances, I submit that the carrier ought also to be given the same benefit of the doubt resulting in exemption from the fine of £2,000. At Second Reading I described the case of the mother with the new-born infant who had omitted to get the new-born infant registered on her passport. It was a passport which, incidentally, was utterly correct in very other respect. The mother and infant together were granted leave to enter but the carrier was fined £2,000. Laudable common sense and compassion were extended to the mother and infant, but not to the carrier.
A similar situation arose again with an airline where a mother with four children on her passport but not on her visa arrived in the United Kingdom. Again, of course, the children were granted leave to enter, but on this occasion it cost the airline £8,000. In another case, a former diplomat arrived from America with a visa which had expired. Being known as a reputable person, of course he was granted leave to enter, but the airline again had a £2,000 fine. I have made the point before but it is one worth repeating that, while UK immigration on such occasions shows laudable common sense and compassion towards the passenger, that is not extended to the carrier. The only person to benefit is the passenger who caused the problem in the first place.
Carriers do not know how many such cases occur, but an examination of the statistics suggests that in 1994–95 a total of 2,742 passengers arrived without a visa, or with a visa that had expired, but were subsequently permitted to stay. That total represents more than a quarter of the total number of inadequately documented arrivals in the United Kingdom that year. Removing
1618
those passengers from the equation would, of course, relieve carriers of a sizeable burden, but it would also reduce the vast amount of paperwork by the immigration service that each case involves.
One of the major concerns raised in the debate on the Asylum and Immigration Bill has been the requirement for additional resources to speed up applications for asylum. If my amendment is accepted, it would certainly free up resources which could then be channelled into helping genuine asylum seekers.
Just as an aside, in Germany—a country so often held to be the example of best practice—the immigration authorities do not fine carriers for breaches of this kind, provided they have made best efforts to prevent their occurrence. Similarly, Canada adopts the German practice. This amendment seeks to put us on a similar footing and I submit that it is logical and fair. I beg to move.
Earl Russell: We have been dealing all day so far with injustices to the weak and helpless. We are now dealing with an injustice to the rich and powerful, but that does not make it any less of an injustice. Justice is proverbially blind and an injustice to one person is just as much an injustice as an injustice to another. It is in that spirit that the Committee should consider the amendment, which seems to me to offer a serious case.
I agree that it is an improper privatisation, in effect, of government responsibility by handing responsibility for the quite important job of checking some technical papers to a body which is not part of the public service, whose objectives are different and which can get its staff to do it only by an exhaustive process of training which is not part of their normal work.
I remember one case referred to in 1991 when we discussed the issue previously. My noble friend Lord Harris of Greenwich states that it was not quoted by him. It concerns a flight from Toronto to Copenhagen. It touched down at Glasgow and was prevented from going on by bad weather. The airline very properly decided that, since it could not fly its passengers further that day, it would get them a hotel overnight in Glasgow and fly them on the next day when the weather was better. It was made to pay the fine for each passenger that it landed. That is slap within the purpose of the amendment. Those passengers were given leave to enter; they went on the next day; and they did no possible harm to the United Kingdom. What really sticks in my gullet about that case is that the imposition of the fine was an incentive to be neglectful of air safety. I am most grateful to the airline that it did not succumb, but it should not have been put under that temptation.
I understand that this situation is costing British Airways £2.5 million a year. It is a considerable sum of money which begins to approach the character of taxation. I do not know by what authority that taxation is raised. It is taxation for things which are not under British Airways' control and not morally, legally or otherwise its responsibility.
Let us take the example of the case put forward by Singapore Airlines. A lady, Mrs. J. Mbabazi, was flying from Singapore to Abu Dhabi. Her flight was delayed,

1619
so she got on a flight to London which had a connecting flight. It was expected that she would not go outside the airport area. However, entirely unforeseen by the airline, she decided to land herself in London and spend the night at a hotel because she was tired. That is a perfectly intelligible decision and not in any way the airline's responsibility. But the airline was fined for it.
Airlines are made to pay for any so-called mistake, but they are not given any financial support for doing the Government's work for them. That provides a contrast with the procedure under the Education (Student Loans) Act 1990 when a similar piece of government administrative work was offloaded on to the universities. I was glad—I welcomed it warmly at the time—that the Government agreed to pay the universities for the work they did for them. If the Government must insist on carriers' liability, I do not see why they should not apply the same principle here.
We have been debating much this evening on the third country removal in which people are shuttled to and fro between airlines. That is done at the airlines' expense. When the noble Baroness turned down the amendment asking for the third country to agree to the removal before the person was removed, she was unloading a great expense on the airlines for something that was no responsibility of theirs.
Finally I wish to ask the noble Baroness this question. I shall return to the issue if we do not receive an answer tonight. Clause 5(1)(b) makes it an offence to assist an asylum seeker—an offence to assist someone in doing what is perfectly lawful. Does that clause create a new carriers' liability? I think we should be told.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: I have my name to this amendment. I support my noble friend's remarks. My noble friend the Minister will be aware that in the past I have been somewhat critical of the operation of the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act. As has been said, it is not the job of airline or ferry employees to act as unpaid immigration officials. I know that both the airlines and the ferry companies have spent large sums of money in training their people to enforce the provisions of the Act as best they can. It therefore seems exceptionally unfair if, following the entry of someone who is given leave or exceptional leave to enter this country by immigration officials, the airline or ferry company should still be liable to pay the £2,000 fine. It is as if you won a case in the courts and, even though you won the case, you were still expected to pay the costs of the prosecution. That is not fair. My principal argument on this issue is one of fairness.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, quoted a case from Singapore Airlines. If he had not done so, I should have quoted it myself. That person came into this country, previously having no intention of staying here. Finding that she had a 12-hour wait in transit at Heathrow, she decided to come into London. I have no doubt that, having done so, she spent some money, which was all to the good of the economy of London. She then returned to Heathrow and departed on her way to Entebbe, where she originally intended to go. The
1620
immigration officials had given her leave to enter this country; yet the airline was still fined £2,000. That is just not fair.
I continue on the case of Singapore Airlines only to say that, under the regulations, last year (1995) Singapore Airlines was involved in 42 cases under the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act. In 31 of those the fines were waived following often protracted appeal. In three-quarters of the cases the fines were waived. I suppose that could be used as argument either way. In my opinion it means that current legislation is badly drafted and needs to be brought into order. If someone can be charged 42 times and let off 31, there must be something wrong with the way the law is being operated.
My noble friend referred briefly to the ferry industry. I know that it feels very strongly about this issue, too. There is a slight difference between the ferry industry and the airline industry. It costs probably only £20 for a foot passenger to get across from the Continent to here on a ferry. Therefore the fine of £2,000 is 100 times the basic fare. At least the airlines probably receive a little more from their passengers to offset against the fine than the ferry companies do. Furthermore, the ferry companies have the problem of people hiding themselves in the back of trucks, in containers and so on, which at least the airlines do not have.
The ferry companies feel particularly aggrieved; and I ask my noble friend to address this issue. Why is the Channel Tunnel, which is in direct competition with the ferries across the Straits of Dover, exempted from all these fines when the ferry companies operating exactly the same route are liable to pay £2,000 every time they bring an illegal immigrant across? I hope my noble friend will examine these issues with care.
This amendment is not designed to upset the entire Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act. It is designed only to address one particular anomaly; namely, of those people who, after they arrive here, are allowed by the immigration authorities to stay; yet even after they are allowed to stay the poor old carrier, whether a ferry company or an airline, is still fined £2,000. That does not seem fair.
Lord Mountevans: I too want to support the amendment of my noble friend Lady O'Cathain. I dare say that it will come as no surprise to those who are aware of the implications of the carriers' liability legislation. On the other hand, it may surprise the Committee to hear that I shall not raise the case of the Gurkha band because I believe that it is famous enough already.
It might be asked why carriers have a liability in the context of immigration control. After all, the airlines and the shipping companies—whose case would, I am sure, have been well advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, had he not been prevented by a bereavement from being here this evening—pay for the provision of immigration services at our airports and ports, as do the taxpayers; in other words, at the frontiers.

1621
But things are not so simple as they seem. It seems to me that in this country we operate a three-tier system of frontier control. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Templeman, who is not in his place, recently chaired a working party on open frontiers in the European Union. His working party summarises the Government's policy as being threefold: pre-entry, which we are discussing tonight; entry; and post-entry. Post-entry—internal follow-up checks—do not concern me tonight. Entry—the checks at ports and airports—need not delay me. After all, as I explained, they are already paid for by the shipping companies and airlines and by the taxpayer. But then there is the pre-entry element. Put simply—it has been well explained already this evening—the carriers pay for a job to be done and are then penalised to the tune of £2,000 per passenger for not doing that job properly at the passenger's point of embarkation. That is a £2,000 a throw penalty.
British Airways staff, PRO staff or even the hired staff (hired, I might add, to take care of customers and not to act as the first line of British immigration control) do not show graduate level skills in the different types of basic travel document currently in general circulation. Let me name a few. There is the British passport—yes, one would expect them to cope with that. The status of a serviceman travelling on a military ID card is somewhat more complex. The seaman's book or certificate when being used in a TWOV, as the trade knows it (Transit without Visa), is okay; but if it is a matter of entering the UK to join a ship, visas may be required, depending upon the seaman's status. As for the Kinderausweis issued by the Germans and assorted kinds of refugee documents, let me casually let them pass.
But the check-in staff cannot be so casual. One slip and the carrier is prone to a £2,000 penalty. Having dealt with the passport and/or document, the check-in staff can find themselves faced with at least five different kinds of British visa. Go further and there may be nine or more endorsements entered on the passport on earlier occasions, some still valid and some very much less so.
So to where is the check-in person to turn? With skill, he or she can decide that real documents are in order. But fakes are another matter. After all, 55 years ago our POWs in Germany could produce relevant and convincing documents using only the facilities available in the camps in which they found themselves. How much easier is it to do so now using the technology that is available?
I have concentrated on carriers' liability and the insurmountable problems that such legislation poses to the carriers concerned, British and foreign. I appreciate that the Immigration Service has made progress in being available to train the carrier staff concerned. But despite that, the carriers incur considerable additional costs in staff training and in seeking to prevent offences. The ferry companies alone incur penalties now approaching £1 million a year, or they are misjudging 50,000 passengers' documents. They and their airline colleagues are then penalised for badly performing a job which I believe Immigration is already paid to do.
1622
I do not believe that any of us would expect an immigration officer to fly a 'plane or captain a ship. No more would I expect check-in staff to act as immigration officers. I am not aware of the former happening; the latter happens, I fear, all too often.
I welcome my noble friend's amendment. I conclude by saying that the benefit of the doubt, if extended to the passenger, should also be extended to the carrier. I am convinced that in almost every case the carrier's staff or agents have surely done their best.
12.30 a.m.
Lord Hacking: I should like shortly to support my noble friend's amendment. I say "shortly" because it is a matter of regret—though I understand the circumstances of the relisting in the Marshalled List—that my noble friend the Minister is having to deal with this difficult matter at half-past midnight.
It has been drawn to the Committee's attention that the provisions of the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act place particularly onerous burdens on carriers. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, talked about taxation without representation. Figures have been given about the cost to British Airways. I have a figure that the cost in the amount of fines to all carriers is somewhere in the region of £5.5 million per annum. If that is not taxation without representation, what is?
It must be acknowledged that the United Kingdom is not alone in asking airline officials to act as immigration officers. Those Members of the Committee who have been to the United States of America know that, when the visa was a compulsory requirement for entering that country, airline officials at 'check in' had to look at one's passport to see whether one had a valid visa. Again, when we leave the United States of America, we do not pass immigration officials; we hand in our passport, and exit permit contained in it, to the airline carrier. This permit is removed from the passport by the airline and not by immigration officers. We are therefore not alone in this.
My objection to the provisions and my support for my noble friend rests in this position. It is unacceptable that airlines should be punished when the offences themselves are treated as technical offences. That is the point. It is an unfair burden and, as the noble Earl, Lord Russell, said: an injustice is an injustice to the big and the powerful as it is also an injustice to the weak and the helpless.
Lord Clinton-Davis: At the beginning of my short remarks I declare an interest as the president of the British Airline Pilots Association, which supports the airlines in the representations that they have made to the Government in this regard. I am pleased too that the Chamber of Shipping, to which the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, referred, is also supporting the representations. He is right to point out that there is a serious anomaly because the Channel Tunnel services are unaffected, whereas the airlines and the shipping industry are affected by the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act.

1623
What I find intriguing about this matter—I agree with the view—is that it is an unfair situation. The noble Lord repeated that several times. He said that it was not fair. It was not fair. What seems to have passed him by is the unfairness of certain other elements of the Bill. They seem to have passed the noble Baroness by. The noble Lord, Lord Hacking, is unconcerned about those other matters. It is a Bill that is replete with unfairness and an administrative system that has gone berserk.
I too am deeply concerned about injustice but I am not selective about it. I want to assure the noble Baroness that, seething with indignation over this issue—as are a number of her noble friends—she may have every confidence that we on these Benches will join her in the Lobby when she decides this evening to vote against the Government. That is the test. One can seethe with indignation as much as one likes; but that is the test. I wonder how far the noble Baroness is prepared to push this matter.
Baroness O'Cathain: I am grateful to the noble Lord for allowing me to rise at this point. First, I should like the noble Lord to know that I am not seething with indignation. I am drawing attention to something that is unjust and unfair, but I am certainly not seething with indignation. I have never seethed with indignation in your Lordships' Chamber. It is not a pretty sight and I hope I never do.
Secondly, the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis—for whom I have a great deal of admiration and respect—is quite unfair (another case of "unfairness") to say to me that I am selective in looking at things that are unfair and unjust. It is up to each person to look at every item in the Bill and make a judgment. I have done that. The fact that I have not jumped up and down to indicate seething indignation is because I have not seen a case for it. I believe deeply that the Bill is right in principle. That is not because I sit on these Benches but because I believe that for too long this country has allowed economic migrants to pretend that they are political asylum seekers. This Bill seeks among other things to turn that one round.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I was interested to hear the Second Reading speech of the noble Baroness in her brief intervention. She said that the Bill is right in principle. That is her view. She is entitled to that opinion. I wonder whether she agrees that it is right in detail as well. Is she wholly happy about these matters? Unfairness and injustice are the principles that guide her in relation to this matter. I say that she is selective. That is my opinion. I am entitled to express it as well.
What the noble Baroness did not say in that very long intervention is what she intends to do about this injustice and unfairness. Will she remain in her seat tonight if the Government are not prepared to give way?
Baroness O' Cathain: What I intend to do tonight is to listen to what my noble friend the Minister says. When I moved the amendment I indicated that I had already spent some time with the Minister and with officials and that I had been greatly heartened by their
1624
understanding of the basic issues. I am looking forward to hearing what my noble friend the Minister has to say. I shall then make a judgment on what I shall do over the remaining stages of the Bill. With all due respect, I shall not be guided by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis.
Lord Clinton-Davis: It would be a great wonder if the noble Baroness were to be guided by anything I had to say. I would begin to question my own judgment if that were the case. At the end of the day we shall of course listen very carefully to what the Minister has to say—that is critical—but what will happen if the Minister does not accede to the noble Baroness's views?
I shall listen with interest, too. Perhaps a critical test will be deferred tonight. Perhaps it will arise at Report stage or at an even later stage of the Bill. Even if the noble Baroness is not seething with indignation, she is deeply concerned about the injustice of the matter, and if she does not get the right response I imagine that, with her due diligence, she will pursue the Government into the Division Lobbies on this matter. But that remains to be seen. I believe it is an injustice. I believe that there are anomalies which need to be cured. I support the noble Baroness in her limited objectives tonight.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: The noble Lord has said that those of us who have our names to the amendment should press it in the Division Lobbies if we do not get a satisfactory reply from the Minister. Can I take it then that every Opposition amendment from now on, if it does not get a satisfactory reply from the Minister, will be pressed in the Division Lobbies? If so, I suppose I had better set aside a little more time for the Bill.
Lord Clinton-Davis: The noble Lord is right; he should set aside a good deal more time. We shall exercise our discretion as to where the most injustice and unfairness arises. And because he is concerned about those issues, we look forward to seeing him in the Division Lobby with us.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: Perhaps I may say a few words on this important question. As the noble Baroness, Lady O' Cathain, will be aware, if she presses her amendment tonight she will win the Division. Therefore, if she withdraws the amendment, we shall draw our own conclusions as to why she has taken that action.
I wish to revisit a debate which we have had in the past on this question. Some years ago I moved a Prayer to annul a regulation which increased the fine under the Act from £1,000 to £2,000, and I received a substantial amount of support from noble Lords on the other side of the House. On that occasion we discussed a number of cases. Perhaps I may have the attention of the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, because I am hoping that she will respond in a moment if she is good enough to pay attention to what I am saying.
On that occasion I drew attention to one particular case affecting a ferry company. A Nepalese military band had lawfully entered this country on the basis of visa which they had a right to, and there was no

1625
difficulty about that. But they made the grave miscalculation of leaving this country to play Nepalese military music in Germany. They returned to this country in order to fly back to Nepal from London airport. They found that because they had not got a double entry visa, the ferry company was fined a very substantial sum of money.
On that occasion I did not secure any coherent explanation as to how that could conceivably be justified. What British interest was possibly served by fining a Nepalese military band who simply wanted to go home from London airport? The fact of the matter was that the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, who was a former Home Secretary and then Leader of the House, decided to reply to the debate. He gave a number of assurances that, unhappily, did not lead to any improvement in the situation. As this amendment will clearly not be pressed tonight by the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain—if I may speak on her behalf—I hope that between now and the Report stage of the Bill the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, will look into this question.
I can understand the problems as regards the department. There is a serious difficulty here and I do not make light of the administrative problems as far as the Immigration Service is concerned. Nevertheless, I cannot believe that it is sensible to proceed in the way that we have.
There was another case of an Icelandic baby who was brought to this country for urgent medical treatment. The airline was fined. I repeat that there is genuine difficulty as far as the immigration department is concerned. At some stage there has to be a substantial review of these procedures, because I cannot believe that proceeding in this way makes any sense whatever.
Lord Hylton: I have been opposed to the principle of carriers' liability ever since the Act was introduced in 1986 or 1987. I believe I have joined in resisting it on subsequent occasions when it has been debated in your Lordships' House. The noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, has tonight helpfully explained to us the compliance costs which are imposed on the companies in coping with this legislation. Her noble friend on the same Bench gave us some kind of order of magnitude of the amount that is raised by the charges in each year.
In the nature of economic life, these things are passed on to us innocent customers by way of additional fares. That is what we object to very strongly. It is a modest amendment because it deals only with the technicalities of the charges imposed on those who are subsequently allowed to enter or stay in the United Kingdom. I hope that the Minister will pay attention to the extraordinary weight and strength of opinion which have been expressed tonight from her own Benches, including the opinion of the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, a former Minister in the Department of Transport.
The Earl of Kinnoull: I briefly add my support to my noble friend. I believe that she made a most powerful case. I congratulate the noble Lord,
1626
Lord Clinton-Davis, on his skill in producing hilarity at 12.45 in the morning. He loosened off another volley of shot which, sadly, missed its target.
The amendment does one simple thing. It seeks to stop a fine being imposed on an airline if the participant is accepted, either temporarily or permanently, by immigration.
One issue has not yet been mentioned. I refer to the fact that there has been quite a high success rate of appeals against the fines—of about 40 per cent., I think. I hope that my noble friend will take that into account because it clogs up the courts unnecessarily and for that reason—let alone the injustice, about which all noble Lords have spoken—I hope that my noble friend will respond to the amendment with her usual sympathy and courtesy. That will add to the skilful way in which she has steered the Bill through the Committee tonight, despite the landmines which have been floating around during the past hour.
12.45 a.m.
Baroness Blatch: The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, has not been with us for most of the Bill's progress although he has joined us this evening and enlivened our proceedings somewhat. However, perhaps I may advise him that we have voted three times today and that his colleagues have protested a great deal on many amendments—amendments about which they were showing some signs of indignation, about which they were concerned and about which they writhed in agony and great anxiety in relation to injustices which they claimed—but they chose not to press those amendments. Indeed, as I said, even on all the amendments that we have discussed today, we have voted only three times.
I thought that the noble Lord was quite offensive to my noble friend. His outrage was pompous and childish. In that, he was joined by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, whose colleagues have protested greatly today, but have not challenged—
Lord Clinton-Davis: Childish?Lord Clinton-Davis: Childish?
Baroness Blatch: That is a word to have fallen from the lips of many other colleagues in respect of the noble Lord on such occasions.
Perhaps I may answer the question asked by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, about Clause 5(1)(b). If the airline knowingly colluded, assisted or facilitated—I think that that is the legal jargon—an illegal immigrant or entry into this country, it would be caught by Clause 5(1)(b), but we are not talking about airlines knowingly carrying passengers for the purpose of illegal entry. Indeed, even with passengers who travel with or without documentation which is in order, the airlines are still not aware that, on arrival, they will seek entry into the country—
Earl Russell: I am grateful to the Minister and understand and accept the point that she is making, but the point about Clause 5(1)(b) is that it is not confined

1627
to illegal entry or deception; it applies to any asylum seeker. Does that mean that any airline which flies any asylum seeker will suffer carriers' liability?
Baroness Blatch: Clause 5(1)(b) relates to the entry into the United Kingdom of anyone who is known to be an asylum claimant. The provisions relate to illegal entry and harbouring. Clause 5(1), which amends subsection (1) of Section 25 of the 1971 Act, relates to assisting illegal entry, and paragraphs (b) and (c)relate to illegal entry and to illegal harbouring after entry.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: If I may be impertinent, I suggested that the Minister should follow what I was saying, but she was having an interesting conversation with her noble friend at the time. I was not referring to an airline; I was referring to a ferry company that brought into this country a Nepalese military band which had lawfully entered this country, gone to play Nepalese military music in Germany, and returned to this country only to catch a plane from Heathrow. A fine was imposed. Why? What British interest was served? They were not asylum seekers. They were not illegal immigrants. When the Minister mentions illegal immigrants, her voice trembles with indignation. But we are not talking about that; we are talking about a uniformed military band. How can it conceivably be in the interests of this country to fine the ferry company in such circumstances?
Baroness Blatch: The noble Lord is becoming overexcited. I am not referring to his point but to a point raised by the noble Earl, Lord Russell. He asked me specifically about Clause (5)(1)(b). The airline would not be caught by Clause 5(1)(b). I turn to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Harris, who appears to be rather excitable at the moment. The noble Lord is rather extravagant with his body language. Given that carriers' liability is tied to documentation which is not in order, is the noble Lord suggesting that all the documentation in that case was in order and therefore the carrier's liability levied was inappropriate?
Lord Harris of Greenwich: If the noble Baroness refers to Hansard tomorrow she will see that the first time I spoke to this question about 20 minutes ago I explained the matter in some detail. If the noble Baroness cares to write to me—which may be a simpler way of dealing with the problem—perhaps she can explain how any British national interest was served by fining a ferry company in the circumstances that I described.
Baroness Blatch: If it occurred under these provisions and passengers were carried with incorrect documentation it would be reason to consider the carrier liable. But my understanding is that the noble Lord had extensive correspondence on the issue years ago when he first raised the point. If there is anything more to say over and above what I have said in response to him, I shall write to the noble Lord. It is my custom to do just that in relation to points not properly replied to in debate.
1628
The Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act 1987 places an obligation on air and sea carriers to ensure that all passengers brought to the UK hold valid passports or acceptable travel documents and, where necessary, are in possession of valid visas. Given all the examples that have been recited round the Chamber, I do not know whether the people referred to—the noble Lord, Lord Harris, has not answered my question—were carrying documentation that was in order. This measure was introduced to stem the flow of inadequately documented passengers who were being brought to the UK in the late 1980s. It remains an essential element in our immigration control. It acts as a major deterrent, both to passengers who know that they require proper documentation before travelling and to carriers who need to consider their commercial interests against their legal responsibilities.
While the costs may be unwelcome to many carriers, the concept of requiring carriers to ensure that passengers are correctly documented for their journey is not unique to the UK. It is underpinned by Annex 9 to the Chicago Convention which states that carriers should seek to ensure that passengers have the requisite documentation when they embark. Thirty-nine countries have similar legislation, including Canada, Australia, Germany, France, Belgium and Denmark. The basis of charging is similar, but each country has naturally adopted its own system of application. I have some sympathy with my noble friend, of which he is aware from discussions that we have had within the department, in that anything we can do to facilitate the ease with which that duty is carried out is to be welcomed. I can assure my noble friend that we shall continue to do what we can to make it a smoother operation.
Since the Act's introduction on 5th March 1987 about £91.5 million has been levied in charges on passengers. However, a charge is imposed as a matter of strict liability only if a passenger requires leave to enter the UK. There is no liability if leave to enter is not required: for example, in respect of EU or EEA nationals. Additionally, where liability exists it is based solely on the question of the inadequacy of the passenger's documentation. There is no linkage between that and whether or not a passenger is granted leave to enter. That is a matter for the immigration officer who will make a judgment based on all of the circumstances available to him. It is quite a separate matter from the responsibility of the carrier.
The responsibility for deciding whether or not to carry a passenger rests with the carrying company in every case. If a carrier knowingly carries a passenger whose documentation is wrong or inadequate then it seems only right that it should be liable to be charged accordingly.
The 1987 Act and the Immigration Act 1971 are entirely separate. There is no requirement that a carrier should additionally satisfy itself that a passenger will be acceptable to the UK authorities on arrival. That judgment can be exercised only by the immigration officer. The carrier cannot, and should not, be expected to anticipate that decision. That is not to say that the Government are not prepared to waive charges where

1629
we believe that it is right to do so. Where a charge has been incurred by a carrier in respect of a passenger who is recognised as a refugee under the convention and protocol and any dependants, it is the Government's policy to refund the charge if it has already been paid, or to waive it if it has not been paid. We believe that that seems fair and just to all parties.
Lord Avebury: What about the person granted exceptional leave to remain? Is it waived then?
Baroness Blatch: I only said what I said, if the noble Lord is attributing to me things that I have not said. I have said it applies where the person is recognised as a refugee under the convention and protocol. That does not include exceptional leave to remain. The noble Lord is putting words into my mouth.
Lord Avebury: I only asked a question. I am not putting any words into the Minister's mouth.
Baroness Blatch: I have always understood that it is improper to conduct any discussion while someone is standing at the Dispatch Box, and certainly from a sedentary position.
Lord Avebury: Perhaps—
Baroness Blatch: The noble Lord spoke before he stood to ask me to give way.
I know that my noble friend is concerned also that a charge could be levied when the passenger is admitted by an immigration officer and subsequently detained and removed as an illegal entrant. Such circumstances are rare, although liability would exist under the 1987 Act and the Immigration Act 1971. I am sure that we would want to be practical. If the documentation was good enough to have deceived an immigration officer, it would be unfair to have expected airline staff to have picked it up.
Other than that, the only pertinent issue is that of passengers' documentation. No matter what may be the eventual decision of the immigration officer under the Immigration Act, the Government cannot accept that there can be any reason to excuse the carrier for knowingly carrying an inadequately documented passenger. We therefore cannot support the amendment.
I shall refer to particular points. As I have already said to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, Clause 5(1)(b) does not create a new carrier liability, because airlines would have no reason to know that a properly documented passenger intended to claim asylum.
I find the point raised by my noble friend Lord Brabazon fascinating. I should like to think more about it. As I understand it, the Channel Tunnel is exempt because the immigration takes place on the train and not after the passengers have alighted, as happens with the ferries. I do not know, but my feeling is that the figures used by my noble friend show that charges can be waived in appropriate circumstances. I have referred to that.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, referred to offering assistance to the airlines. First, it would be inappropriate for the Government to offer financial assistance, but the
1630
immigration service provides extensive training. Up to the end of 1994, 284 training visits had been made to 82 countries since the Act came into force. That is a practical way of helping the airlines. We shall continue, as I have said to my noble friend, to assist in ensuring that this is the smoothest operation possible.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: Perhaps I may say to the Minister before she concludes her remarks that the body language of the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, is admirable, if I may speak on his behalf. I am deeply neutral on this question, but I suspect that he may be as puzzled as I am to hear the Minister's response on the question of the cross-Channel train. Once someone gets on that train, the train will not stop and deposit that person in France if he or she does not have the appropriate travel documents. Therefore, they will undoubtedly arrive in this country. However, the company responsible for running the trains is not charged under this Bill. How can that possibly be justified? I am puzzled. Perhaps the Minister would like to explain.
1 a.m.
Baroness Blatch: If the noble Lord had been paying attention to what I said he would have heard me agree that I was interested in the question myself. I said to my noble friend that I would like to reflect more on the question that he posed. I simply gave him the answer of which I had been advised for the purpose of tonight's debate, but I am just as puzzled as the noble Lord. I will take that matter away and think about it.
Earl Russell: I was a little intrigued by what the Minister said about Clause 5(1)(b). Naturally, I am relieved if it does not create a new carriers' liability, but I was a little puzzled by the ground that the Minister gave: that the airline should have no ground for thinking that a properly documented passenger intended to claim asylum.
For the purpose of argument, let us suppose that the passenger tells the cabin staff that he wishes to claim asylum and asks how to set about it. I could imagine that that could happen. Does that make the airline guilty of an offence? If so, why should it be an offence to assist someone to do what is in itself perfectly legal?
I was also taken aback by her reply to my noble friend, who asked on the matter of the Nepalese military band what conceivable British interest could be served. The Minister simply said that the documents were not in order and imagined that that was a complete and sufficient answer. I was completely taken aback until suddenly the penny dropped; this is where the Home Office discovered the concept of the mandatory minimum sentence. The Minister sees that it stirs up a hornets' nest.
Baroness Blatch: In response to the example of the noble Lord, Lord Harris, I asked him whether the documentation of the members of the band was in order and he was unable to answer that. The interest as regards the British, and the interest under the measures with which we are dealing tonight, refer to people arriving in this country with documentation that is not in order.

1631
I do not know whether they were foreigners landing in Britain with documentation that was or was not in order. I have asked the question of the noble Lord, Lord Hams, and he simply has not answered it.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: I am puzzled that the Minister should raise that rather bad point because in my first intervention on this matter I explained the facts. Unhappily, the Minister was engaged in an agreeable conversation with her noble friend Lord Goschen and therefore did not listen to what I was saying. I pointed out that they had a single entry visa to the United Kingdom, which I concede. After that they had gone to play Nepalese military music in Germany. They had returned to this country in order to board a plane at Heathrow to return to Nepal. The carrier, the ferry operator, had to pay a fine for each member of the band. My question was simple; what British national interest was served by that?
Baroness Blatch: I hope that this is the last time I have to rise to deal with this matter. The carrier is liable only if the documentation is not in order. If the documentation is in order there is no liability on the carrier.
Baroness O'Cathain: I am grateful to the eight Members of the Committee who spoke in support of my amendment. I noted that no one spoke against it except my noble friend the Minister. I tabled the amendment because, as I said, I have always conceded that if the documentation is not in order, that is the carrier's liability. I am specifically worried about cases where the documentation has been proved not to be in order, yet the immigration authorities say that people can stay. I believe that there is an injustice there.
I should like to say also to the Minister that of course the legislation is not unique to the United Kingdom. My noble friend gave Canada and Germany as examples. But, in turn, I also referred to those countries because I said that, in cases exactly as those I have just described where the documentation was not in order so that, therefore, technically there should have been a fine, the immigration authorities gave leave to remain because there was obviously no wilful act. Germany and Canada do not impose the stringent conditions which we impose in this country.
There is still a measure of incomprehension between us on this matter. This is a relatively early stage of the Bill. I shall not rise to the bait which was so nobly spun at me by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, and others. I shall not divide the Committee, but I shall return to this question. In the circumstances, I think that it is about time that I actually withdrew the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4 [Obtaining leave by deception]:
Baroness Williams of Crosby Baroness Williams of Crosby moved Amendment No. 52:
Page 4, line 23, leave out ("by means which include") and insert ("knowingly by material").
The noble Baroness said: I suspect that this may be the last brief debate this evening but it is a matter of considerable concern. Clause 4 is a small but extremely disturbing clause because it introduces into the terms of the Immigration Act 1971 new wording of a very unclear kind. The Act states in Section 24(1):
"A person who is not patrial shall be guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction with a fine of not more than £200 or with imprisonment for not more than six months, or with both, in any of the following cases—if contrary to this Act he knowingly enters the United Kingdom in breach of a deportation order or without leave".
I want to underline the words:
"he knowingly enters the United Kingdom".
Since a criminal offence is involved, and, indeed, the possibility of imprisonment, it is important that this Act refers to the fact that the action is taken "knowingly". Under the proposals in the new legislation, the word "knowingly" is dropped and in its place we have the vague phrase that there are:
"means which include deception by him".
That phrase does not relate the deception to the person concerned; does not make it clear what is the nature of the deception; does not say whether the deception is material to the person receiving leave to enter the United Kingdom; and does not indicate whether that deception is knowingly undertaken. That seems to me to be extraordinarily unsatisfactory drafting for legislation emerging from this Chamber or the other place.
Indeed, the wording and the meaning of "deception" is, to say the least of it, disturbingly bald. Given that in Clause 5—to which I shall refer only because we are not debating it now—this offence extends to those who may aid or abet that extremely unclear definition of what is wrong in Clause 4, the net widens and widens to bring in the possibility of a criminal offence for a very large number of people, both in this country and outside it—people in this country who in many cases for the best reasons in the world are attempting to help somebody with a legitimate claim to be an asylum seeker in this country.
What also troubles me greatly is that there are many, many examples of the unknowing use of deception. It is made more disturbing by the fact that, if my understanding is right, later this year the Home Office intends to set out extremely detailed ways in which those who seek to remain here or to extend their leave to enter and remain here will be obliged to fill in very detailed forms in order to do so. Those detailed forms will, I understand, require documents to be attached to the request and such documents will have to be in order.
The bureaucratic obligations that are being mounted for those who seek asylum in this country are now becoming so great that it is very unlikely that almost any of us could actually satisfy them without in some way or other making a mistake. Clearly that unintentional mistake might be captured by the word "deception". I hope that I am wrong. It may be that the Minister will be able to assure me that I am wrong and that the word "deception" will indeed be interpreted in very different ways.
However, what I genuinely do not understand is why the Government should replace the clear wording of the 1971 Act in an area that, I repeat, extends to criminal offences and which, therefore, should be made very clear, with the unclear wording in the current legislation which appears to me to be so vague in its possible interpretation that it could in fact mean that many perfectly honest men and women may be caught by virtue of the word "deception" when they had no intention of knowingly using deception; and indeed, no intention of seeking to remain by the use of deception. Even at this very late hour, I very much hope that the noble Baroness will be able to assure me that my interpretation of Clause 4 is simply wrong. I beg to move.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I rise simply to apologise deeply to the Minister whom I continue to hold in high esteem and also to express my support for the amendment just moved by the noble Baroness. It is indeed a most important issue.
Baroness Blatch: I hope that I shall be able to help the noble Baroness. From what she said, it appears that the amendment has been motivated by a desire to protect from prosecution for the new offence proposed in Clause 4 those who enter or remain by deception practised by a third party of which they themselves are ignorant.
Decided cases have established that a person who gains entry on the basis of deception practised by a third party may be removed as an illegal entrant. That will continue to be the case. However, it is not our intention that people who enter in such circumstances should be caught by the offence which would be created by Clause 4. For an offence to have been committed, the person who obtained leave to enter or remain would himself have to have practised deception. To have any effect, the deception would also have to have been material.
It is not the Government's intention to criminalise those who have unwittingly gained entry by deception. As currently drafted, we are satisfied that Clause 4 offers such people protection from prosecution. I hope that that explanation is helpful to the noble Baroness.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: I thank the Minister for that response. However, I feel that I must press the issue one step further. Perhaps the Minister could explain to me why the original use of the word "knowingly" in the 1971 Act could not be repeated in the 1996 legislation. I believe that its inclusion would clarify the use of the word "deception" and ensure that we did not have an interpretation so wide that not only might people be caught by it but, also, there could be considerable reasons for opening the door to blackmail directed at immigrants into this country and, indeed, at asylum seekers. I say that because the word "deception" in such terms is so broad and, therefore, one might be able to threaten people with revelations in that respect if we do not have a more precise wording in Clause 4.
Baroness Blatch: Again, I believe that the noble Baroness is introducing the notion of a third party who
1634
may well have colluded or collaborated in that respect; or, worse, exploited an entrant into the country. I am not able to explain the read-across to the 1971 Act to which the noble Baroness referred. However, I can say that those who unwittingly practise deception—in other words, those whose intention was not to be deceitful—are covered. Moreover, as I said, the third party would not be caught. I repeat, those who obtained leave to enter or remain would have had to practise deception and, for the provision to have any effect, the deception would have to be material. I shall check the point about the read-across to the 1971 Act and come back to the noble Baroness.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: I thank the Minister for that and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 53 to 55 not moved.]
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clause 5 [Assisting asylum claimants, and persons seeking to obtain leave by deception]:
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis moved Amendment No. 56:
Page 4, line 30, leave out ("or has reasonable cause for believing").
The noble Lord said: This will be the last amendment that we shall move this evening, but it is an important issue. I shall wish to read what the Minister says because the issue gives great concern to the legal profession, as I am sure she is aware. We all agree on the objective that the Government have set: to attack the racketeers. There are too many of them who exploit immigrants and asylum seekers, at great cost to the asylum seekers and great profit to themselves. When I was in another place, a large number of people in inner London exploited such people unmercifully.
However, the problem is that the drafting is so wide that it will also attack lawyers and organisations who seek to give genuine advice to asylum seekers. The solicitors' own professional rules are not as extensive as the clause. The Law Society believes that there is a real risk that the clause as drafted will undermine the solicitors' duty to act in the best interests of their clients. Solicitors are under a professional duty not to act on clients' instructions where they know that deception is involved. The suggested amendment to the clause that we propose will reflect that duty, without undermining the solicitor/client relationship.
It would be extremely difficult for any adviser to disprove that he or she had reasonable cause for believing that an application included deception. The amendment suggests that a more reasonable level of proof is to demonstrate that there was knowledge of deception.
There is another problem in that I do not believe that the provisos contained in Clause 5(2) will necessarily save the lawyer giving bona fide advice in circumstances along the lines I suggested. I hope that the Minister will reflect further on the matter. It is a

1635
reasonable amendment which in no way attacks the principle of the Bill which she holds so dear. I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Brougham and Vaux): I have to advise the Committee that if Amendment No. 56 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 57.
Baroness Blatch: The noble Lord announced that these are the last amendments. I assume that Amendments Nos. 58 and 61, which are directly related to this amendment, are not referred to here and will not be moved tonight.
Lord Clinton-Davis: No, they will not.
Baroness Blatch: This group of amendments seeks to establish a higher standard of proof than that which currently applies for the existing offences of facilitating the entry of an illegal entrant, and then seeks to apply that higher standard of proof to the new offence of facilitating for reward the entry of an asylum claimant and facilitating the acquisition of leave to remain by deception. By removing the words,
"or has reasonable cause for believing",
completely from the wording of the offences or removing that phrase and instead inserting "believes", the amendments would provide the convenient and ready-made excuse of "I did not know". This would allow racketeers to plead innocence through ignorance and to proceed without prosecution, pocketing their ill-gotten gains on the way.
Raising the standard of proof required to secure a conviction is clearly inappropriate if we are serious about dealing with racketeers. We really must do something. I have not seen or heard anything which suggests that the standard of proof set out in the existing offence is disproportionately low or that it has led to the mounting of inappropriate prosecutions. Consequently I can see no justification for raising the standard of proof from that clearly established in the Immigration Act 1971. We need to be firm about this. The law needs to be robust, and the messages to the racketeers need to be unequivocal.
I am not clear why the Opposition wish to amend the new provisions and, in the amendments which will not be moved tonight, then seek to delete them. When we discuss Amendments Nos. 58 and 61—it will probably be on another day—we shall have the opportunity to consider in full why these new offences are necessary.
The Government have introduced into the Bill two new offences. Let us be clear about what they are: assisting illegal entry into the United Kingdom knowingly; and assisting by deception an illegal entrant to remain in the country. That is the evil trade that is being prosecuted by racketeers. It should not be allowed to flourish. Clause 5(1)(b) and (c), as set out in the Bill, are absolutely necessary. I have no hesitation whatsoever in asking the Committee to reject the amendment.
Earl Russell: Before the noble Lord replies, I wish for one important piece of clarification. If one of us
1636
should assist a person to come through the port on papers which do not show any intention to claim asylum, and he immediately claims asylum in the country, would we commit an offence in doing so?
Baroness Blatch: If the noble Earl does that for gain, the answer is, yes, he would have committed an offence.
Lord Clinton-Davis: I am disappointed by the Minister's reply, which leaves no room for doubt in her mind. I think that there is a great deal of room for doubt as to its effect on those who genuinely seek to give advice. I believe that the provision will act as a deterrent.
As I said earlier, I am with her about racketeers. I have no time for them. But solicitors are not required, indeed it is contrary to the rules of solicitors, to probe their client's honesty. I have been a solicitor for rather a long time—too long, some may say—but the fact is that there seems to be no reason in principle why an adviser who is misled by an unscrupulous client should have to pay for that client's lack of honesty.
There is a real problem here. The Minister should try to meet it. Will she say that she will reflect further on the representations made by the Law Society? The noble Baroness is under no obligation to say that she will amend the Bill in consequence, but I should like her to say that she will reflect further on those representations. They are made in good faith by a professional organisation which has a clear interest to ensure that no injustice is done to members of the profession: that they are not held at risk of prosecution for a situation in which they would normally be doing that which they are required to do. If they have raised these issues, they should be taken seriously. I invite the Minister to reflect on that point. I shall be interested to hear what she has to say.
Lord Hylton: It seems that a probable case has been made out that solicitors and barristers may be caught by provisions aimed at racketeers. When the Minister replies, will she also say whether or not voluntary and volunteer advisers working mainly for voluntary organisations and often for charities will also be in the same plight?
Lord Avebury: The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, raises an important point. I should like some assurance on it. I find myself on numerous occasions being asked for advice by someone in a country of origin who wishes to claim asylum in the United Kingdom.
Perhaps I may cite an instance to the noble Baroness. A lawyer in Sri Lanka received death threats. Five of his colleagues had been murdered. He was advised that the best thing to do would be to leave the country. We facilitated his entry into the United Kingdom. Under this provision, should I have committed an offence and been liable for the penalties? In her initial remarks I believe the noble Baroness said that a condition had to be that the assistance was given for reward. In that case, the volunteers mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, or Members of this House and another place

1637
who give unsolicited advice and do not charge for it would be exempt from prosecution. It would be helpful if the noble Baroness gave an assurance on that point.
Baroness Blatch: The noble Lord will see that under Clause 5(2)(a) volunteer advisers are not caught in relation to asylum seekers because they operate "otherwise than for gain". That is partly the answer I gave to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, a moment ago.
The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, asked about seeking exemptions that could apply to solicitors. It is very difficult to justify that. Unfortunately, some solicitors become involved in this evil trade and bring people here illegally. The noble Lord expressed some concerns on the part of the Law Society. As is my custom, I always reflect on everything that is said in the course of debate at any stage of a Bill and will reflect on those particular points.
The principle relates to the racketeer who, for gain, assists illegal entry—a practice that is very, very common—and assists by deception an illegal entrant to remain in this country. We believe that they are appropriate offences, and I should like to think that they are supported on all sides of the Committee.
Earl Russell: The noble Baroness needs to explain a little further what is meant by the words "for gain". Let us assume, for example, that a Member of another place with a large ethnic minority representation in his constituency and a very small majority assists asylum seekers to enter, believing that that will forward his re-election. Is that done for gain, or is it not?
I wish to make another point, I hope with the capacity to get attention, because it is a matter of very great personal importance to me. The noble Baroness has conflated two matters, one of which we agree is an evil trade, the other of which we on these Benches believe to be perfectly legal; namely, assisting people to pass by deception through the port in order to claim asylum in the country. We believe that that is part of our international obligations. Were any of us to criminalise ourselves by doing that, we should be placed in very great difficulty. I hope the noble Baroness will take that point on board.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: I have one further question before the Minister replies. In addition to the extremely serious point made by my noble friend, will she say another word or two about the reference to bona fide organisations? The phrase in the Bill is:
"a bona fide organisation whose purpose is to assist refugees".
Will the noble Baroness let us know whether a bona fide organisation with several purposes, one of which is to help refugees, would meet the meaning behind this part of the clause? As she will appreciate, there are a number of organisations whose main purpose may be, for example, to discover whether human rights are being breached in other countries but whose secondary purpose is to assist refugees. The phrasing is rather broad. She may be able to help me on that point.
Baroness Blatch: I believe I can help on that point. The noble Baroness will see that Clause 5(2) affords the kind of protection to which she refers when one is concerned with bona tide cases.
1638
I have to say to the noble Earl that I am astonished at some of the insinuations that underlined the comments he made a moment ago. If a Member of Parliament advises people in the normal course of his duties, first, I do not make the assumption that he is doing it for electoral purposes, since it is the duty of a Member of Parliament to offer advice. If he is doing it as a Member of Parliament in those circumstances and not for gain—that is, taking some payment, whether in kind or in money—then he will be entirely free from being caught by these provisions.
In answer to the noble Baroness, I am advised that bona fide organisations with several purposes would qualify, if they were indeed bona fide. That has to be the assumption; but that was the point made by the noble Baroness. Again, there is no need to deceive immigration control in this country because it is not an offence to claim asylum. One can deceive to get out of the country but not to get in. So we arc talking about deliberate deceit.
First of all, we regard racketeering as a very evil practice indeed. We are making it an offence in this Bill. Noble Lords wish to remove the offence.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: No.
Baroness Blatch: Oh, yes, noble Lords do. Amendments Nos. 58 and 61 ask to remove those two offences from the Bill: remove existing illegal entry and remove assisting by deception an illegal immigrant to remain in this country. I have read those two amendments, although they are not being moved this evening.
I want to give the example of a racketeer convicted in May last year—one of the rare successes, I have to say, in the current fight against such people—who was estimated to have earned £1.25 million in five years through his immigration activities. Police who investigated the case estimated that the racketeer had handled over 1,000 cases and had arranged about 650 marriages, in addition to submitting countless bogus asylum applications, where he had invented the substance of the claim. Once again, failure to act—which is what deleting the offence from the Bill means and that is to what the noble Lords have put their names; that is what deleting the offences from the Bill would amount to—would provide an open invitation to racketeers and facilitators to profit by ruthlessly trading on the aspirations of others. The noble Lords can wriggle all they like, but those amendments are down on the Marshalled List today.
Lord Clinton-Davis: The noble Baroness has made a very serious allegation and I must rebut it immediately. She has attacked a number of us tonight and she is very testy. But the fact is that she said that in effect we intended to aid and abet the racketeers. That is offensive. She has all the armoury of the draftsman and she is able to do that perfectly well. She can draft; and she sometimes makes a lot of mistakes herself in the drafting. She frequently has to come back to the House with a massive number of amendments to the legislation that the Government bring forward. It is much more difficult for us to draft.

1639
I made it very clear—did I not?—over and over again, that we have no time and no room for racketeers. She knows very well the inadequacies that affect any Opposition. She will find that out in a year's time, anyway. But she has not begun to deal with the broad brush approach which will attack the bona fide practitioner. In no other field is a solicitor required to investigate whether his client has committed an offence. If the client says that that is his defence to something, the solicitor has to accept it. The solicitor can say, "Look, I don't think you'll stand much of a chance in court; but if that's what you want me to represent to the court, I must do that." It is his (or her) duty to say that. This particular provision goes far beyond that and creates a situation where solicitors will be very rueful about acting in this sort of case. That would be a tremendous disadvantage not only to the client and the solicitors alone but to the country, because people are entitled to proper representation.
Earl Russell: On behalf of these Benches, I should like to associate myself with everything that the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, said. This is a matter of intense personal importance to me. If the noble Baroness could draft a clause which would catch the racketeers and separate them from those who wish to continue to assist those who claim asylum in the country, she would find no one on this side of the House who would support racketeers. I am a great enthusiast for keeping the law, as the noble Baroness knows. But when I talk of observing the law, I include our international obligations, especially if they are reinforced by an Act of Parliament as recent as 1993.
The noble Baroness knows how I interpret the UN Convention. If she were to place me under an obligation in relation to the Bill, in conflict with what I regard as my legal obligations under the UN Convention, I would be placed in severe difficulties. The noble Baroness knows, and will remind herself if she walks down the corridor to Central Lobby, that I come of a family which has made a cult of political martyrdom. I think that that can be overdone. I now agree with St. Augustine that martyrdom does not deserve the name unless one makes an attempt to avoid it. It is that attempt in which I am now engaged.
Lord Hylton: Before the noble Baroness replies, perhaps I can say that at the end of a long and arduous day it seems to me that she has made a serious charge against the Opposition Front Bench. I hope she will agree that it is possible that she may have overlooked the distinction between a probing amendment and a substantive amendment. If that is the case, some of the problems may be solved.
Baroness Blatch: First, no one suggested that these are probing amendments. Secondly, I referred to what I. read. I do not need a bank of officials to tell me that the amendment to remove lines 31 to 33 and lines 34 to 36 in the names of the noble Lords, Lord McIntosh and Lord Dubs, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, removes two new offences which were added to the Bill to deal
1640
with racketeering; that is, assisting illegal entry into the United Kingdom by deception, and assisting, by deception, an illegal entrant to remain in this country.
Those are important provisions in the Bill. Up until this moment those offences have been supported almost universally, even by the Opposition's colleagues in another place. But it is not banks of officials who placed that interpretation on this; I simply read the words on the page that those two new offences are to be removed from the Bill.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, expresses a genuine concern. However, if he wants to advise and help somebody who may fall under the United Nations Convention 1951, he has absolutely nothing to fear if he is not exploiting those people: if he is advising them and helping; if he is not doing it for gain and he is not deceiving the authorities. At the point of entry the noble Earl would want, in their interests, to make sure that asylum was sought properly under the rules. I hope the noble Earl is not suggesting that he believes it is a bona fide activity to help somebody, by deception, to remain in this country without making that known to the authorities.
All I am saying is that these are important offences. Up until this moment they have been universally supported and I am surprised that they are not supported by noble Lords opposite.
Lord Dubs: I did not intend to say anything at all. But, in all fairness, it is only proper to respond to what the Minister said. I appreciate that the Minister has spent around nine-and-a-half hours on the Front Bench. That is a long time—far too long—and I have enormous sympathy for her because it is an unreasonably long period of time to do what the noble Baroness has been doing.
Having said that, I must go on the record. Years ago when I was in the other place, I was so angry about racketeers that I went to see the immigration Minister to protest that there were not enough measures to deal with racketeers. I have been involved in such issues for a long time. Anybody in the other place who represented an inner city constituency will know exactly what racketeers do; how they undermine our constituents in the other place and how they obtain sums of money. It seems wrong in principle that those people should continue to act as they do.
I regret that the Minister suggested that some of us had different motives. Frankly, we are seeking to withdraw the remaining amendments because of the lateness of the hour. That must be a worthy motive at this time of the evening. Some of those amendments are probing amendments. We have not had a chance to say so and the Minister is attacking us for tabling them. It is a normal convention in this Chamber, as it is in the other place, that amendments at Committee stage are tabled to test in detail the Government's thinking— no more and no less than that. We have had the Minister saying, on the one hand, that we have not taken enough amendments to a vote, implying that we were not committed enough to them, and, on the other hand, that there was something wrong with our motives because we put down amendments which were there simply to

1641
test the motives of the Government. I regret that the Minister has made those allegations against us. I am disappointed that she has seen fit to lower the tone of the debate in that way.
Baroness Blatch: It was certainly not my intention to lower the tone of the debate. As for the taunt about not pressing amendments, it was entirely in response to noble Lords opposite who have been rather offensive to my noble friend, who was not pressing the only amendment that she had on the Marshalled List today. I was saying that there were many amendments on the Marshalled List today which had not been pressed to a Division. I do not make that criticism other than to make the point that the noble Lord was being unfair to my noble friend, when it is not unknown for her to go through the Lobbies against the Government on occasions when she feels it is appropriate to do so.
It is not lowering the tone to say that the new provisions, which the Government want and with which the Opposition now say they do not agree, deal with unscrupulous racketeers who organise the illegal entry into the United Kingdom of people not entitled to come here by providing them with fictitious asylum claims, organised marriage rackets and bogus educational establishments whose sole purpose is to deceive the immigration authorities. These racketeers ruthlessly exploit their victims. These two amendments were aimed at that. Noble Lords have made it quite clear that they do not agree with that and they also have amendments on the Marshalled List to remove these new offences from the Bill.
1642
I simply draw the conclusion that noble Lords have spoken against the amendment and they have put down amendments to remove the two new offences from the Bill. I draw only the most appropriate conclusion from that.
Lord Clinton-Davis: The Minister is afflicted by the Howard syndrome. That is the problem. The trouble is that they cannot recognise an important point when it is raised by a professional organisation of great repute and by organisations such as the Refugee Council and many others which are concerned about the welfare of people. The noble Baroness cannot see that. She is completely blind to argument tonight. We do not blame her because it is late. Her reason has succumbed to the lateness of the hour.
The other factor is that in the other place the Minister agreed to consider Clause 5(1) so that it would be better targeted on racketeers. Why did she not say that tonight? Why did she not agree that there was room for improvement? That is all we are asking for. We are certainly not on the side of the racketeers—and she knows it. What she is trying to gain is some obscure political point. She really has not done herself credit tonight. In all the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 57 to 66 not moved.]
Clause 5 agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 67 and 68 not moved.]
Lord Lucas: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.
House adjourned at sixteen minutes before two o'clock.

  Rwanda: Genocide Investigation
  Rwanda: Genocide Investigation
  Israel's Attack on Iraqi Nuclear Installation
  Israel's Attack on Iraqi Nuclear Installation
  Israel: Nuclear Activities
  Israel: Nuclear Activities
  Chemical Weapons: Destruction
  Chemical Weapons: Destruction
  Agency Performance Targets
  Agency Performance Targets
  Transport Strategy for London
  Transport Strategy for London
  Department of Transport Agency Targets
  Department of Transport Agency Targets
  Road Measurement Units
  Road Measurement Units
  Rail Franchising Director
  Rail Franchising Director
  Dearing Report: Terms of Reference
  Dearing Report: Terms of Reference
  Comfrey
  Comfrey
  Services for Drug Misusers: Task Force Review
  Services for Drug Misusers: Task Force Review
  Social Security Costs
  Social Security Costs
  Passport Agency
  Passport Agency
  Immigration and Nationality Directorate: Complaints Report
  Immigration and Nationality Directorate: Complaints Report
  BSE Cases
  BSE Cases