Sitting of 17 December 1996

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

  KING'S COLLEGE LONDON BILL [LORDS]
  Ordered,
  That the Promoters of the King's College London Bill [Lords] may, notwithstanding anything in the Standing Orders or practice of this House, proceed with the Bill in the present Session; and the Petition for the Bill shall be deemed to have been deposited and all Standing Orders applicable thereto shall be deemed to have been complied with;
  That if the Bill is brought from the Lords in the present Session, the Agents for the Bill shall deposit in the Private Bill Office a declaration signed by them stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill which was brought from the Lords in the last Session;
  That, as soon as a certificate by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office, that such a declaration has been so deposited, has been laid upon the Table of the House, the Bill shall be read the first and second time (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read) and shall be ordered to be read the third time;
  That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during any previous Session.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Oral Answers to Questions
  ENVIRONMENT

    Traffic Policy (London)
    Mr. Dykes: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will commission a study of the effect of pedestrianisation and traffic rerouting schemes on local socio-economic developments in the London boroughs. [7851]
    The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. John Gummer): Circumstances all over London are so different that I do not believe that an overall study would help. Nevertheless, it is up to local highway authorities to ensure that pedestrianisation and traffic rerouting encourage trade in local shops, ensure proper parking provision for shoppers and provide a safe and attractive environment.
    Mr. Dykes: I thank my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for his courtesy in answering the question himself. There is no reason why he should be conversant with the details of the Wealdstone traffic bypass scheme, but will he ask his officials to look into it, bearing in
    738
    mind the fact that the pedestrianisation and traffic bypass configuration are causing local traders a severe loss of business? Would it be possible for an advisory group of his officials to put right the wrong decisions made by local officials and councillors in the original scheme?
    Mr. Gummer: I am happy to see whether my officials can help Harrow. It is crucial that local businesses should be given the best trading opportunities, particularly in an area such as Wealdstone. I am sorry that the council appears not to have taken that properly into account.
    Mr. MacShane: With London the most clogged-up capital in Europe, is not the best news for pedestrianisation in the capital the fact that Ministers' drivers are threatening to strike, which may make Ministers get out and walk, use the tube or the buses, or get on their bikes? For the first time in a long time, they will see how ordinary people have to live and move in London. Will the Secretary of State give us a clear commitment, before he goes into obscurity, that London will follow Europe and have more pedestrianised zones in the city centre?
    Mr. Gummer: As I understand it, London is in Europe. The hon. Gentleman is kind to favour us with his presence today from Geneva. No doubt he knows a great deal about the various capitals of Europe. I do not believe that his comparison between traffic in London and that in the rest of Europe is remotely accurate. If he spent enough time here to see how much we have been doing to improve traffic and pedestrianisation arrangements in London—not least the plans for Trafalgar square and Parliament square—he would be able to ask a more helpful question.

    Local Government Finance
    Mr. Hoyle: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received from the local authority associations on the 1997 revenue support grant settlement. [7852]
    The Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration (Mr. David Curry): None, yet.
    Mr. Hoyle: Does the Minister agree that his Government give with one hand and take with the other? For the penny reduction in income tax, the public will have to pay at least 2p in council tax. Does the Minister realise that, if the Government were a company, they would be prosecuted for fraud?
    Mr. Curry: The hon. Gentleman is clearly subject to some arithmetical confusion. The Government have reduced income tax. Council taxes will rise somewhat because we have always felt that it is sensible to return some financial autonomy to local government. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Just wait. That is what local authorities keep telling me that they want. It is interesting that, when the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), who leads for the Opposition, addressed local government associations last week, he said that a Labour Government would spend much more on direct grants to local authorities to enable them to deliver what

    739
    the Government wanted. I want to give local government more autonomy and he wants to give it less. If he does not trust his councils, why should anybody else?
    Mr. Atkins: Will my right hon. Friend be sure not to listen to any representations from Lancashire county council, especially if they contradict the representations that he has had from Lancashire Conservative Members? He listened to our representations and deferred the area cost adjustment, which was being pressed by the Labour party and would have cost Lancashire some £20 million. Does he recognise that he will receive the thanks of Lancashire Conservatives and of Lancashire folk as a whole for listening to what we said to him?
    Mr. Curry: My right hon. Friend is right to say that he and other Conservative Members made representations on the area cost adjustment. It is true that I felt that there were problems that had to be resolved before we could address whether that mechanism could be adapted to the standard spending assessment. We have asked local authorities to suggest what work needs to be done to take the matter forward. If Lancashire wants to make representations to me, I must, of course, be willing to listen. However, as he would expect, I always listen to local government representations, with a long list of questions to which I want answers in return.
    Mr. Rendel: Is the Minister aware of the letter writing campaign of Cabinet Ministers, and no doubt other Conservative Members to head teachers and chairs of governors peddling the myth that the Government are providing more money for education this year? Is he further aware that the recipients of the letters treat them with scorn and ridicule because they know that the blame for education cuts lies with the Government, not local education authorities?
    Mr. Curry: It is normal for hon. Members to want to be in regular contact with their teachers and local education authorities; I am, in my constituency. No doubt hon. Members will want to make it clear that local authorities, except those caught by the rule on absolute excess, can increase spending on the passported services, of which education is the most important, over and above what they spend now by the full amount of the standard spending assessment increase, without penalty or cash cuts in the other services. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will convey that message to his head teachers.
    Mr. Congdon: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the local government settlement was far better than many local authorities had expected? Would not their complaints about funding gain more credence if authorities embraced compulsory competitive tendering by encouraging the private sector to bid rather than awarding contracts in-house, and paid more attention to collecting taxes and rents?
    Mr. Curry: My hon. Friend is right to say that local authorities have a prime duty to perform the basic management functions of local government efficiently. The filling of voids in council houses and the collection of rents and council tax, which is proving to be a good tax and one that is easy to collect, are the prerequisites of good local government. He asked whether local
    740
    authorities thought that the increase was reasonable. I sometimes get the impression that, if the Archangel Gabriel were to fly across the country distributing £10 notes, local authorities would still find a way of saying that the settlement was inadequate.
    Mr. Dobson: Will the Minister confirm that, early next year, he will expect Conservative Members to vote for a local government grant settlement that will mean that the citizens of Westminster will contribute only 4 per cent. towards the cost of their council services, while council tax payers in the average Conservative constituency will contribute 25 per cent., and that some Conservative Members will be voting for a settlement that will require their council tax payers to contribute more than 40 per cent. of the cost of their local services—10 times what will be asked of people in Westminster?
    Mr. Curry: I know that the hon. Gentleman has had a bad week, what with his little local difficulty in Camden and the Sunday newspapers saying that he was about to be demoted, so I understand why he has not asked an especially good question.
    Because Westminster sets a level of expenditure well below its standard spending assessment, it depends a lot less on what has to be raised from local taxpayers than other councils, which set a level well above SSA. If everyone ran as prudent a council as Westminster, less tax would be imposed on people. It is about time that people realised that the hon. Gentleman's only interest is in waging a prolonged war against Westminster. The citizens of Westminster will note that, in the event of a Labour Government, they will be the first to cop it, with the rest of the country shortly behind.

    Citizens Juries
    Dr. Wright: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will take steps to promote the use of citizens juries in local government and planning matters. [7853]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Sir Paul Beresford): We are currently undertaking, with the local government associations, research on issues surrounding public participation in local government, which could include citizens juries.
    Dr. Wright: May I ask the Minister to be slightly more interested in the reply that he has just given me and to give the House a sense that he genuinely wants to know about some of the innovations and experiments that are going on in local authorities throughout the country? For example, there is a scheme in Lewisham, involving young people on drugs; and one in Hertfordshire, involving local people in waste management issues.
    Is the clue to the Government's attitude to be found in the letter from the Deputy Prime Minister that appeared in newspapers recently, describing the Government's approach to public services and saying that they were not attracted by the idea of new democratic bodies, because they attracted the enthusiasts?
    Sir Paul Beresford: We are certainly interested, and I am aware of the cases to which the hon. Gentleman

    741
    refers; hence the conclusion that we might examine the matter in the research. The difference is that, in court juries, the selection is random and, as critics have pointed out, juries of the kind that he is talking about are not. I am sure that he would not want juries, whether on planning or on personality selection, to be rigged.
    Mr. Wilkinson: It would be an excellent idea to have a jury in the local government area of Hillingdon, where the socialist borough council is seeking to foist on local people plans for social housing in green-belt land, on the St. Vincent's hospital site and on Field End recreation ground. Those plans are bitterly opposed by local people. Is it not the case that, if local people were properly consulted and if the council heeded the objections of the Department of the Environment, such monstrosities would not be foisted on the electorate?
    Sir Paul Beresford: My hon. Friend is aware that there was a spontaneous jury in his area: about 4,000 objections were received at the second stage of the unitary development plan, and that is probably a record.

    Green-belt Land
    Mr. Chris Davies: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on his policy towards providing protection for green-belt land in planning legislation. [7854]
    Mr. Gummer: I have pledged myself to defend the green belt. That attitude extends to metropolitan open land and to the attempt by some local authorities to sell off school playing fields.
    Mr. Davies: Is the Secretary of State aware that the Labour council in Oldham is planning on dumping the best part of 2 million cu m of industrial spoil on green-belt land in Beal valley? It can do that because it claims that the end use will be a golf course. Is he aware that a council of any political complexion could in theory dump on green-belt land for the best part of 100 years by claiming that the end use would be an approved development? Should not the guidelines be toughened to stop such despoliation?
    Mr. Gummer: I am aware that, after extensive consultation by the borough of which the hon. Gentleman is a member, it received only 21 letters, one of which was from himself. It is therefore extremely difficult to believe that the local authority—although it is not an authority that I support—has got it wrong. There are occasions when despoiling of green belt needs to be remedied, and sometimes that is done by the proper use of filling. That may or may not be right in the case to which the hon. Gentleman refers, but it is for the local authority to make its decision, and he had a great opportunity, as a member of that authority, to put his case.
    Sir Kenneth Carlisle: Does my right hon. Friend agree that a good way of protecting the green belt is to enhance the vitality of town centres, and will he therefore develop policy to curtail large out-of-town retail developments?
    Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend is right. Creating such vitality would not only protect the green belt but draw
    742
    people back into town centres, to live, work, shop and carry out leisure pursuits. That seems to be the right way forward, and I am glad that the Labour party has now begun to agree.
    Mrs. Helen Jackson: Does the Secretary of State think that opencast coal mining on the green belt should ever be justified? Will he make it clear that opencast coal mining applications on green-belt land will not be allowed?
    Mr. Gummer: I remind the hon. Lady that it was I who changed the presumption against opencast coal mining, which her party never did and had never pressed before. I did it without Labour's help—
    Mr. Hardy: That is wrong.
    Mr. William O'Brien: The Minister is wrong.
    Mr. Gummer: Hon. Gentlemen must not say what is untrue. I changed that presumption because I take the view that there should be very specific reasons for allowing opencast coal mining. I have been extremely careful in checking each application.
    Mr. Steen: Is not the threat of 4 million new houses being built on the green belt due to the fact that people have difficulty living together? Every time a marriage breaks up, two houses are needed where one home was needed before. In order to cater for the 4 million new houses that will be needed in Britain by 2011, will my right hon. Friend ban building on green-field sites until the inner cities and land inside city boundaries is full? Many such areas have much vacant land at the moment, which could and should be used first.
    Mr. Gummer: I have made it absolutely clear that I do not intend to allow building on open spaces as a means of satisfying the need for 4.4 million homes. I have said that that building should take place to the maximum possible on areas that have already been used—on the present footprint. I intend to insist on that.

    Beaches
    Mr. Morgan: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals he has to amend the criteria for publishing lists of beaches conforming or not conforming to European Union legislation on bathing water cleanliness. [7855]
    The Minister for Construction, Planning and Energy Efficiency (Mr. Robert B. Jones): At present, we have no plans to amend the Department's current practice in that regard.
    Mr. Morgan: As it has now emerged from recent written answers that I have received that 117 out of 346 English beaches and 22 out of 55 Welsh beaches failed the faecal streptococci test in 1996—the key test for determining public health consequences of swimming in dirty sea water—does the Minister agree that the Government need to change their policy and the environmental information that they publish for people about to use our beaches? If he promises to do something

    743
    about that today, I in turn will promise never again to use the hoary chestnut about the need for real action on clean sea water rather than just going through the motions.
    Mr. Jones: The hon. Gentleman revels in undermining the British tourist industry, and that is a disgrace. I shall give him a clear piece of advice. So long as there is a Conservative Government, we shall conduct affairs based on proper understanding of science and risk. If there were ever to be a Labour Government, their windfall tax would ensure that there was no room for improvement in standards, as well as hitting people's pensions and creating unemployment in the water industry.
    Mr. Mans: Will my hon. Friend congratulate all those in Fylde who have helped to make the beaches around Blackpool and Fleetwood so much cleaner? Will he join the leader of the Labour council in Blackpool and other local Labour politicians in their criticism of the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) for his ill-informed criticism and comments on the clean-up of the Fylde coast?
    Mr. Jones: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. He will remember that rainy winter's day when he and I stood on the front at Fleetwood considering possible remedies to the problem. Together, we conducted a campaign to ensure that Blackpool's beaches were improved. I congratulate him on his achievement, which has certainly done a great deal for the tourist industry in his area.
    Mr. Meacher: Further to the Government's emphasis on their record, will the Minister confirm that, in 1990, the Secretary of State for the Environment claimed that all bathing waters in the United Kingdom would be brought up to European standards by 1995? On that basis, will he explain how, in 1996, 47 UK beaches officially failed to reach the European mandatory minimum standard—more than the number that failed it last year—and some of them failed it due to pollution more than 20 times above the maximum permitted limit? Since the Secretary of State likes to use his family to persuade us that things are safe, will he allow them to swim off those beaches?
    Mr. Jones: Perhaps I could remind the hon. Gentleman that the late unlamented Labour Government, of whom he was an especially undistinguished member, had a moratorium on investment in the water and sewerage industries, as a result of which the privatised water industry had to cope with a huge backlog. None the less, we are making rapid progress.

    Anti-social Tenants
    Mr. Patrick Thompson: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to provide assistance to local authorities in respect of anti-social tenants. [7856]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. James Clappison): The Housing Act 1996 contains a package of measures to help local authorities deal with anti-social tenants.
    Mr. Thompson: The Government's recent announcements are good news for many council tenants in
    744
    my constituency of Norwich, North. They provide another example of the good that the Government have done for my constituents since 1983. Complaints about anti-social tenants feature strongly in my constituency surgeries, so the news is indeed good. Can my hon. Friend ensure that Norwich city council starts the introductory tenancy scheme at the earliest opportunity?
    Mr. Clappison: My hon. Friend is right about the good news for tenants—the vast majority of tenants, who want to be protected from the activities of anti-social tenants. Norwich council would do well to consider the proposals for introductory tenancies, as well as strengthening the grounds for obtaining possession against anti-social tenants and making it easier to give evidence against tenants who behave badly and intimidate law-abiding tenants. All those measures will be important in helping the vast majority of law-abiding tenants.
    Mr. Betts: If the Government are so concerned about the problem of anti-social tenants, and want to take action, why did they reject Opposition amendments tabled to the Housing Bill in Committee, with the support of Labour local authorities and their tenants, especially those designed to extend witness protection schemes to all occupiers irrespective of tenure, and in very serious cases to extend the use of injunctions with mandatory powers of arrest? The Minister, in particular, rejected those amendments, although local authorities and tenants want the powers to be used.
    Mr. Clappison: If the hon. Gentleman read the Act, he would see that it attaches the power of arrest to injunctions. He will remember that, when the Committee examined in detail the Labour party's proposal for a community safety order, it was found to be an unsatisfactory and unworkable mess that was not even pressed to a vote. He may also remember that, when proposals came before the House to impose secure training orders on youngsters who persistently commit serious criminal offences, the Opposition voted against them. Talk is cheap, but the Labour party has no stomach for firm action.

    Out-of-town Shopping Developments
    Mr. William O'Brien: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on his Department's planning guidance for out-of-town shopping developments. [7857]
    Mr. Robert B. Jones: In June, we published the revised policy planning guidance note 6, "Town Centres and Retail Developments", which is designed to provide stronger support for town centres. We shall report progress on the Government response to the Environment Committee next month.
    Mr. O'Brien: I thank the Minister for that reply, but the Government's belated recognition of the issue of town centre development has caused much damage to many urban centres, including those in my constituency such as Ossett, Rothwell and Normanton, as well as the neighbouring towns of Horbury and Wakefield. Out-of-town shopping developments such as Asda and Meadowhall generate car use and damage the

    745
    environment. Can the Minister assure communities and local authorities that turn down planning applications for out-of-town shopping developments that the developer must prove beyond any shadow of doubt an overwhelming need for such facilities before the Department will give approval?
    Mr. Jones: I agree with the hon. Gentleman's proposition, because that is Government policy. All applications are dealt with against the background not only of PPG6, with the rigorous tests that he mentioned, but of PPG13, which focuses on the issue with which he started—traffic generation—so I can certainly give him those assurances. I find it disappointing that there are still councils that do not judge such issues against the background of PPG6 and PPG13, with the result that we have to call applications in for examination at a public inquiry. It would be much better if that were not the case.
    Mr. Day: Does my hon. Friend agree that, although the Government's change of policy on out-of-town shopping developments has been most welcome, for some areas—such as my constituency—it has come too late? We now have a large shopping development at Cheadle Royal, with another two miles away at Handforth Dean in the Tatton constituency. Those developments have had a significant impact on the villages of Cheadle, Cheadle Hulme, Heald Green and Bramhall. Given that the Government obviously recognise the damage that has been inflicted by changing the policy, will they not consider going a step further and looking at the possibility of reducing business rates for small retailers in a five-mile radius of new shopping stores?
    Mr. Jones: As my hon. Friend knows, rateable value is based on the going rents in a particular area and any decline in the relative prosperity of a particular village or town will eventually come through in terms of a differential in the rateable value of those out-of-town sites.

    Local Government Finance
    Mr. Cohen: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the effect of his public expenditure proposals for local government on the provision of local authority services. [7858]
    Mr. Curry: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the statement my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made to the House on 27 November.
    Mr. Cohen: Is it not the case that central Government funding for local education authorities is increasing by only 0.5 per cent. in cash terms—well below pay and price inflation? Far from there being new money for education, do not one third of local education authorities face a cash cut in central funding next year? Are not the Government to blame for more stress and slash in education and other council services, and for an increase in council taxes of more than 6 per cent. next year?
    Mr. Curry: The hon. Gentleman will know that, if local authorities succeed in attracting parents to their nursery schools, and therefore parents use cash vouchers to educate their children in local authority schools, not a
    746
    single local authority will suffer a cash cut in its education SSA next year. We have made special provision so that the increase in education SSA can be passported straight through on top of existing levels of spending.
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in a letter of 9 December, the clerk of Lancashire county council admitted that the council does not have time to make a judgment on the levels set by the Government? Is he further aware that the council spends its entire time criticising those levels without having properly assessed them?
    Mr. Curry: My hon. Friend is closely attuned to the pulse of Lancashire, and she speaks for a great many ordinary people in Lancashire who know what the local authority gets up to. If I had to listen to the advice of Lancashire county council or my hon. Friend, I would take her advice every day of the week.
    Mrs. Mahon: Will the Minister confirm that, if Calderdale council had received as much grant per head as Westminster this year, it would not have had to collect a council tax at all and could have given £290 back to each council tax payer? Is he further aware that, if the council had received the same help for education as Westminster, it could have employed another 831 teachers?
    Mr. Curry: I wonder whether the hon. Lady is aware that, if all local authorities had received the same revenue support grant as Islington—together with that for the precepting authorities—it would have been worth £897.61 a head, and the average band D council tax would have been reduced by more than £1,500, making it a negative? In addition, the cost of the revenue support grant nationally would have increased by £27 billion, adding 15p in the pound to the basic rate of income tax. That shows what a thoroughly silly question was asked by the hon. Lady.

    Estates Renewal Challenge Fund
    Mr. Bellingham: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many local authorities were awarded funding under round 1 of the estates renewal challenge fund. [7859]
    Mr. Clappison: Eleven local authorities have been awarded funding in the region of £174 million. This will secure improvements to 19,000 homes on 29 needy estates.
    Mr. Bellingham: I thank my hon. Friend for that excellent reply. Is he aware that many people in Norfolk are rejoicing at the news of the list of winning bids in the capital challenge pilot scheme? As well as two excellent schemes in Norwich—one of which is worth £2.5 million and the other nearly £4 million—there are two in my constituency. First, there is the North Lynn gateway scheme—where the go-ahead has been given to environmental improvements to the entrance to a school—and secondly, the Hunstanton regeneration scheme. The latter scheme will be most welcome, as it will regenerate the waterfront and many other parts of the town. Are those

    747
    not examples of the Government listening to local people and going ahead with environmental improvements to their communities?
    Mr. Clappison: It is good news that those environmental improvements are taking place in North Lynn and Hunstanton in my hon. Friend's constituency. I am sure that he, too, will be pleased that there are to be substantial improvements in the 29 needy estates that are in some of the most rundown areas of the country, as well as improvements for tenants in the form of repairs and maintenance.
    Mr. Raynsford: Does the Minister agree that it is gross hypocrisy to talk about improving conditions on a small number of selected estates when the Budget savagely cut housing investment and, as a result, condemned hundreds of thousands of tenants throughout the country to live in substandard housing? If the Government are really serious about improving housing conditions, why do they not release the £5 billion of capital receipts?
    Mr. Clappison: The hon. Gentleman is wrong. He should applaud transfers of housing that bring about repairs and maintenance for tenants, especially when they take place in the most needy areas. He should make it clear whether he is promising more spending on housing, or saying that cuts should fall elsewhere. If he will not, will he explain how he would go about funding housing? We have made it clear that we want there to be transfers, and all the improvements that they bring, and that we want to bring in private capital alongside public expenditure and so get greater value for money. We have heard nothing from the hon. Gentleman, and that failure is becoming increasingly widely recognised.

    Councillors (Allowances)
    Mr. Garnier: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what powers he has to control the level of allowances which local authority councillors award themselves. [7860]
    Mr. Gummer: To ensure that local people can see what their council is doing, we have required local authorities to publish annually the amount of allowances paid to each of their councillors.
    Mr. Garnier: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the leader of Leicester city Labour group, aided and abetted by his Labour cronies, and without any proper consultation with the taxpayers of that city, has raised his allowance from £4,000 a year to more than £27,000 a year? What price local democracy under Labour?
    Mr. Gummer: My hon. and learned Friend may have noticed that it appears that, earlier this year, there was a 600 per cent. increase in the allowances paid to councillors in Leicester, yet this very morning representatives from Leicester were in the office of my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration complaining that they do not have enough money to meet their bills for essential services. It does seem that Leicester ought to look at its priorities.
    Mr. Sheerman: The Secretary of State will know that, fairly recently, in the name of improving democracy,
    748
    we in this House voted a substantial increase in our pay. Is it not about time that, to ensure the quality of candidates from all parties that come forward for local government, we pay local councillors a decent rate? Is not that good for local democracy? Is it not harmful that the cheapjacks on the Conservative Back Benches ask questions like that? Does it not undermine local democracy and the real effort being made by Labour councillors up and down this land?
    Mr. Gummer: I happen to think that real effort is made by councillors of all sorts, not only Labour councillors up and down this land. [HON. MEMBERS: "He said that."] The hon. Gentleman specified Labour councillors up and down this land, exhibiting the usual bias that he brings to the House. Many of us did not vote for that increase in pay. Furthermore, we are talking about 600 per cent. increases in the allowances paid to councillors who then complain that the taxpayer does not provide them with enough money to carry through services. If councillors ran enabling councils, instead of trying to run everything themselves, they could do the work far more effectively and in a great deal less time.
    Mr. John Marshall: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, apart from publishing the amounts of councillors' allowances, local authorities should publish the amount that they have written off to benefit the political friends of councillors?
    Mr. Gummer: Transparency in these matters is very important, but what is most important is that, when councils insist on increasing the amount paid to their councillors, they should recognise that those sums are supposed to be honoraria for help, not payments. One of the distinguishing features of local councils is supposed to be that they are run by people who do it while also doing another job.

    Minerals Planning Guidance
    Mr. Barnes: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to review minerals planning guidance note 3; and if he will make a statement. [7861]
    Mr. Robert B. Jones: Minerals planning guidance note 3 was fully reviewed and revised in July 1994. There are currently no plans to revise it again.
    Mr. Barnes: Is the Minister aware that there are 15 opencast operations or applications in the north-east corner of Derbyshire, which are ripping its guts out, in addition to historic operations in the area? Should not mineral planning guidance notes take into account the cumulative aspects of the matter? They are supposed to take into account current and future operations, but they take no account of historic operations and they should do so. There should also be an investigation in north-east Derbyshire to establish whether the cumulative aspects of the matter are being taken into account.
    Mr. Jones: That is incorrect. We take the strong view that local authorities, in drawing up plans for their areas, should include the criteria by which they will judge planning applications. They should, if appropriate, include

    749
    the cumulative effect of such applications. It is entirely the responsibility of Derbyshire county council and the hon. Gentleman's local authority to ensure that applications are processed in the right way.
    Mr. Nigel Evans: I accept the need for minerals for construction and road building, but does my hon. Friend accept that the guidelines need to be sufficiently flexible to reflect the changing needs and priorities of certain areas—such as tourism in the Ribble valley—to ensure that the local authority has sufficient protection to be able, in certain circumstances, to turn down certain planning applications from companies in my constituency?
    Mr. Jones: Authorities' local plans should be flexible, so that they can respond to changing circumstances. As my hon. Friend knows, every planning application must be dealt with on its merits, and if the merits—or disbenefits—change, that is a material consideration for the local authority to consider.
    Ms Ruddock: Is the Minister aware that the test of environmental acceptability in the revised guidance of which the Secretary of State today boasted is proving a farce because the Coal Industry Act 1994 requires sites to be sold on the best available terms? Does he agree that environmental criteria should be included in "best available terms" and, if they are, can he explain why the ecologically important site of Shilo north in Broxtowe has been sold to RJB Mining in preference to the conservation bid made by that local authority in the interests of the community?
    Mr. Jones: "Best available terms" must necessarily reflect the obligations that any owner has to make environmental improvements or to accept environmental controls over what it does, and the need to take a risk on the likelihood or otherwise of gaining planning permission for any extensions. As there is no presumption in favour of development in green areas, it would be very difficult for such an applicant to prove a case unless the benefits considerably outweighed the environmental disadvantages.

    Business Rates
    Mr. Fabricant: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the level of business rates charged to small companies, partnerships and sole traders. [7862]
    Sir Paul Beresford: As my hon. Friend is aware, the Government have taken steps to ensure the freezing of the business rate for small businesses for the coming financial year.
    Mr. Fabricant: Is my hon. Friend aware that many villages—such as Pipe Ridware in my constituency—in which small businesses are located will benefit from that? Is it not the case that about £100 million has been made available from the Budget for that purpose? Was my hon. Friend shocked, as I was, that when the hon. Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Dr. Wright) asked a question
    750
    earlier, he did not thank my hon. Friend for the £4.5 million capital challenge grant from his Department which will safeguard 1,100 jobs in Burntwood?
    Sir Paul Beresford: Some people are ungracious in the extreme, but my hon. Friend is right. Small businesses in towns and villages are congratulating the Government on the move.
    Mr. Pike: Recognising that the Government have had to take measures to minimise the effect of next year's revaluation on small businesses, and remembering that the legislation that introduced the national business rate was the second part of the Thatcher legislation that launched the ill-fated poll tax, will the Government now admit that that was the worst flagship ever launched and that they should now scrap all that legislation?
    Sir Paul Beresford: That is a bit rich coming from the hon. Gentleman, who, when we were discussing this matter in Committee yesterday, talked about the business rate returning to the local authority setting. I know that he was trying to goad me, but he should recognise the damage that Labour-controlled local authorities have done in the past. Consider previous rates: Camden set a business rate for small businesses of 229.2p; Westminster set a rate of 171p—a dramatic drop; and one of my better-known favourites, Wandsworth, set a rate of 161.1p. We can see in some parts of central London the damage that business rates set by Labour-controlled local authorities did. Shop after shop in Tottenham Court road is shut because of Camden council.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mrs. Fyfe: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 17 December. [7881]
    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.
    Mrs. Fyfe: Has the Prime Minister seen today that another London hospital has shut its doors to emergency patients? At the Victoria geriatric unit in Glasgow, a notice asks staff to think cost-effectively and limit incontinence wipes to two per person. Does the Prime Minister still maintain that the NHS is safe in Tory hands?
    The Prime Minister: Not only is the NHS safe, it is improving its service day by day. What the hon. Lady missed out of her litany were the 70 or so improvements in primary health care announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health. The hon. Lady knows that not only is the health service improving, but resources for the health service are improving both globally and per patient.
    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 17 December. [7882]
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Greenway: Does my right hon. Friend recall reports from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development some years ago, when inflation was 27 per cent., there was disaster everywhere and the International Monetary Fund had to be called in? Will he contrast those reports with the latest OECD report, which says that this country is set for record economic expansion and more growth than for 30 years, which will benefit the health service and everyone else? Would not all that be put at risk by uncosted Labour promises if the Labour party was ever elected to office—which it will not be?
    The Prime Minister: A few weeks ago, the shadow Chancellor dismissed the economic improvements in this country as propaganda. The OECD report published today shows how inaccurate he is. It says that prospects for achieving sustained output, growth and low inflation are the best for 30 years. The OECD now expects the UK's growth rate next year—and the year after next—to be the highest in the group of industrial nations, easily outstripping Japan, Germany, France and the United States. It also forecasts falling unemployment on the back of that. There is no doubt that it is a glowing report. It is the best OECD report that this country has received for very many years, and it shows the best economic prospects that we have had for very many years.
    Mr. Blair: Will the Prime Minister now tell us specifically by what date the European beef ban will be lifted?
    The Prime Minister: I note, first, that the right hon. Gentleman does not deny the OECD report and does not wish to comment on it.
    The right hon. Gentleman knows that the beef ban will be lifted by our European partners and that I cannot tell him precisely what date that will be. We have taken measures for the ban to be lifted, and I shall seek the lifting of the ban progressively as soon as possible. We are now in the process of discussing a certified herd scheme that would cover the whole of the United Kingdom and from which we hope to see a progressive lifting of the ban.
    Mr. Blair: If the Prime Minister wants to ask me questions, I shall be happy to swap roles whenever he wishes to call the general election.
    The Prime Minister's answer on beef is extraordinary. Does he not recall that, after the Florence summit, he came to the Dispatch Box and said that he had a firm agreement that, if we did certain things, the ban would be lifted, and that the timetable was in our hands, not Europe's? [HON. MEMBERS: "He did not say that."] He certainly did say that. He said that, at the end of November, the ban would be lifted on scientific evidence. Is it not clear that he had no such agreement; that there was no guarantee that the ban would be lifted; that the timetable is in the hands of the veterinary committee; that he cannot give us a date; and that the lifting of the ban
    752
    was not proceeded with on scientific evidence? Can the Prime Minister tell us the date by which the ban will be lifted, if the Florence agreement holds?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is misleading the House.
    Madam Speaker: Order. I am sure that the Prime Minister does not mean the words that he has just said. I must ask him to withdraw them. No hon. Member misleads the House.
    The Prime Minister: No doubt innocently, the right hon. Gentleman has misunderstood the situation on beef—and not for the first time. The conditions that are necessary for the scientific committee to consider lifting the beef ban depend on actions that we take. That is correct. Among those actions is the selective cull. That is correct. As I reminded the right hon. Gentleman yet again yesterday—not for the first time—the selective cull was delayed because of the extra evidence on maternal transmission and because the over-30-months scheme was larger than anybody had supposed. The position now—
    Dr. Strang: Who are you kidding?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is the Opposition's agriculture spokesman and he is supposed to know. If he does not know, I understand why the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) does not know. We now know who is providing the information that the right hon. Gentleman misunderstands. We are now seeking to obtain progressive lifting by means of the certified herd scheme, as we have set out, on more than one occasion, to the right hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Blair: So the Prime Minister cannot give us a date for lifting the ban. [Interruption.] The Government gave us a date before, they did not honour it and they cannot give us a new one. I have just checked in Hansard, and the Prime Minister specifically said that the date for lifting the ban was in the hands of the British Government. If that is correct, why can he now not give us a date? The answer is that it is not in his hands. [Interruption.] Conservative Members may shout, but the truth is that BSE is a symbol of the Government—they are incompetent, incapable and can never be trusted.
    The Prime Minister: If the right hon. Gentleman reads what I said a few moments ago, he will understand why his third question is absurd, as was his prepared sound bite. It is no good his trying to fix facts. He cannot fix polls, as we have seen, and he should not try to fix facts.
    Mr. David Atkinson: Does my right hon. Friend recall the question that I put to him almost exactly a year ago about the failure of most computer systems in this country and throughout the world to recognise the year 2000, which will have enormously damaging consequences, not least for British business? Does he accept that, one year on, widespread ignorance of and inaction in response to the problem remain? Will he now give serious consideration to my ten-minute Bill, the Companies (Millennium Computer Compliance) Bill, which would do much to ensure that the computer systems of British businesses will be safe in three years' time?
    The Prime Minister: I shall undertake to ensure that my hon. Friend's ten minute Bill is examined carefully by

    753
    my right hon. Friends. The underlying problem to which my hon. Friend refers is very serious, and we do not intend to leave it without action.
    Mr. Ashdown: The Prime Minister can huff and puff as much as he likes, but speak to any farmer in this country and they will say that the BSE fiasco tells us all we need to know about this Government: they dither at home, posture abroad, surrender at the end and blame it all on Europe. Does the Prime Minister realise that the anti-European opinion in his Cabinet, on his Back Benches and overwhelmingly among his candidates throughout the country means that, far from fighting for Britain in Europe in 1997, the Conservatives will become Britain's out-of-Europe party in 1997?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman has a long tradition of being very supportive of the European Union. After all, some time ago he said:
    "We want Ministers to make decisions in public and without single nation vetoes".
    The right hon. Gentleman would surrender that. He has also said that he does
    "not believe in the sovereignty of Parliament"
    as far as the European Union is concerned. The hon. Member for North Devon (Mr. Harvey) has written to my right hon. Friend the Minister Without Portfolio claiming that his party does not want a united states of Europe. I find that very odd, as the same hon. Gentleman said some time ago:
    "our"—
    that is, Liberal—
    "ideas on Europe are totally illiberal … we want to create a bureaucratic and centralist nightmare".
    Not only are the Liberals unable to agree among themselves, they cannot even agree with themselves.
    Sir Roger Sims: Is not today's White Paper, to which my right hon. Friend referred earlier, to be welcomed, as it both extends the facilities available to patients and increases the involvement in primary care of health care professionals such as nurses and pharmacists? Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that additional resources will be given to the national health service to develop the White Paper proposals?
    The Prime Minister: We have set out a commitment for additional resources over and above inflation for the national health service throughout the next Parliament—a commitment that we have honoured during the past 17 years and which other parties seem unable to match. My hon. Friend is right about the importance of primary care services. The proposals announced today by my right
    754
    hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health will lead to better general practitioner premises, a wider range of services available closer to home, better training for GPs and other staff, expansion of nurse prescribing, more funds for research into primary health, and much else besides. It is a very significant advance in the march towards far better primary health care.

    Official Visits
    Mr. Hinchliffe: To ask the Prime Minister when he intends to pay an official visit to Wakefield. [7883]
    The Prime Minister: I have no plans to do so.
    Mr. Hinchliffe: Has the Prime Minister had the opportunity to study the correspondence that I sent him last week concerning my constituent, Mr. Wayne Hood of Wakefield, who was recently sent to prison for four years for the attempted murder of his former foster parent who seriously sexually abused him over a seven-year period during his childhood and adolescence? Bearing in mind the fact that the foster parent has been gaoled for seven years for those serious offences against Mr. Hood and other children in his care, will the Prime Minister support the call for a review of Mr. Hood's sentence? While I do not condone Mr. Hood's actions, has he not been treated very harshly by the courts in view of his background and circumstances?
    The Prime Minister: I have seen the correspondence that the hon. Gentleman sent to me, and I am grateful to him for giving me notice of his question. I am aware of the hon. Gentleman's deep interest and concern about this case. I made inquiries, and I understand that an application for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal has been lodged. The hon. Gentleman will know that, in those circumstances, it is not appropriate for me to say anything further now. I believe that that is the correct way to pursue the matter. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to discuss it with me privately, I will be happy to see him.
    Mr. Robert G. Hughes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the people of Wakefield would not want us to leave this year without congratulating Damon Hill on winning the sports personality of the year award? Would not they be amazed to know that he achieved that without an audience participation unit?
    The Prime Minister: I should like to congratulate Damon Hill on his success. The whole country took a great deal of pleasure in his many wins throughout the year. He is a very deserving winner of that poll. In the spirit of amity at Christmas, I shall not respond to the latter part of my hon. Friend's question.

World Trade Organisation Conference
3.30 pm
The President of the Board of Trade and Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Ian Lang): I should like to make a statement to the House on the outcome of the first ministerial conference of the World Trade Organisation held in Singapore last week, at which I led the United Kingdom's delegation.
The Government are convinced that free trade offers unparalleled opportunities to enhance prosperity, not only in the United Kingdom, but around the world. Accordingly, we had three objectives for the conference. The first was to agree a substantial programme to carry forward trade liberalisation in the WTO, including, in particular, forward-looking work on trade facilitation, standards, Government procurement, tariffs and investment, which is a key priority for British business.
The second objective was the completion, in outline, of an information technology agreement aimed at the progressive elimination of tariffs on information technology products, with the widest possible participation by WTO member countries. The third was to make real progress on negotiations to liberalise basic telecommunications, which are scheduled to conclude by February 1997. I am glad to say that I have positive news to report on all three objectives.
There is now provision in the WTO's new work programme for many of the United Kingdom's priorities for tackling the trade barriers that still remain outwith WTO rules. On trade facilitation—or the simplification of import and export procedures, which was a British-led initiative—the programme agreed opens the way to new co-operative work between the WTO and other relevant international organisations to reduce burdens on trade. Those procedures currently add some 10 per cent. to the costs of goods in international trade.
On Government procurement, all WTO member countries will now engage in work on transparent procedures, which should help to open a much wider range of opportunities for exporters and save taxpayers' money around the world, by encouraging more competition in public tendering procedures. That is an important step forward. Again, it was a British-inspired initiative.
On technical product standards, the way is open under the WTO's work programme to increase co-operation between the WTO and international standards organisations so as to concentrate work on priorities that are of real practical importance to trade, and to reinforce the use of international standards.
The Singapore ministerial declaration contains a renewed commitment to the progressive liberalisation and elimination of tariffs and non-tariff barriers generally. A working group will be established to look at the range of issues that arise in the relationship between trade and investment. That is vital to Britain as the world's second largest overseas investor.
A working group will be established to study the relationship between trade and competition policy. We will want to promote the development of competition regimes in countries that do not have them, and to reduce any barriers to markets created by anti-competitive practices.
756
The biggest immediate trade liberalisation achievement of the week was an agreement in principle to phase out tariffs on a wide range of information technology products by the year 2000. Our aim is maximum country participation and maximum product coverage. The deal was instigated by the European Union and the United States, but was joined by 11 other countries. Overall, the participating countries represent about 83 per cent. of world trade. Definitive conclusion of the agreement is scheduled for 1 April 1997, subject to increasing country coverage to the equivalent of 90 per cent. of world trade and reaching satisfactory final arrangements on the staging of tariff reductions in the run-up to the year 2000.
The value of this to Britain will be significant. It will eliminate tariffs facing British exporters in a number of key overseas markets; it will reduce the cost of vital IT products which we import, such as semiconductors; and it will stimulate new growth and enterprise, as there is no British industry that does not rely on IT products in its operations. In money terms, the value to the United Kingdom is estimated at £250 million on tariff cuts alone, setting aside the enormous potential of increased global trade in information technology. As the US trade representative has said, this is
"a huge global tax cut".
An important deal was also agreed between the European Union and the United States on the further elimination of tariffs on spirits. That is very good news indeed for our drinks industry, particularly the Scotch whisky industry. Specifically, the EU and the US have agreed to accelerate the elimination of their tariffs on the import of whisky, brandy and other brown spirits. At the same time, they have also agreed to eliminate their tariffs on the import of gin, vodka and other white spirits over the next five years.
Good progress was also made in the on-going WTO negotiations to open up world telecommunications markets. As the House knows, Britain has benefited greatly from having one of the most liberal telecommunications markets in the world. Nine countries pledged new or better offers, in addition to the 34 commitments already made. That has improved the prospects of an agreement by February 1997, which could be worth $20 billion per annum to Britain by the year 2010.
The United Kingdom was also influential at the conference in helping to keep the WTO focused on trade liberalisation issues. Ministers agreed that economic growth and development, fostered through increased trade and trade liberalisation, offered the best prospect of raising labour standards. The relevant passage in the ministerial declaration also makes it clear that the International Labour Organisation is the competent body to deal with labour standards, while noting that the existing limited collaboration between the WTO and ILO secretariats will continue. In practice, that means that, as has been the case for some time, the two secretariats will send observers to each other's meetings. I am sure that that approach, through trade liberalisation, offers the right way forward, rather than an approach based on sanctions or other restrictions.
In this context, the United Kingdom also pushed hard for specific market access commitments for products from the least developed countries. Those countries account for only about 0.4 per cent. of world trade. I therefore

757
welcome the plan of action agreed by Ministers, which aims to provide more favourable and predictable access for the exports from those countries.
I am happy to say that for the United Kingdom and, I believe, for the world as a whole, the conference was a substantial success. It has enhanced the authority of the World Trade Organisation, and the overriding importance of reducing barriers to trade on a multilateral basis. It represents an important step towards the British Government's objectives of launching a new round of trade negotiations before the end of the century and, in the longer term, achieving global free trade.
Mrs. Margaret Beckett: Does the President of the Board of Trade understand that Labour Members find some of the things in his statement very welcome? On some issues that he set out before he went to the conference, there is common ground across the House. We certainly welcome, for example, the simplification of procedures for importers and exporters, the extension of greater transparency in tendering for public purchasing, the work on achieving greater conformity in international standards, where Britain has a great potential competitive advantage, and the potential establishment of the working groups, which will consider a range of issues arising between trade and investment and trade and competition. Labour Members certainly share the Government's view that those are all desirable means of progress.
We would identify one issue of slight concern. We might be anxious if we thought that there had been the convergence of view on core labour standards that the President of the Board of Trade has identified, but as it appears that everyone is claiming victory on that front—I understand that Commissioner Brittan said that the discussions had been a breakthrough in dialogue on these matters—clearly there is a certain amount of common ground there and not necessarily a clear victory for the Government's view, as the President sought to suggest.
The President raised the issue of liberalisation of telecommunications, which we welcome in the context of the WTO talks. We want it to be achieved through completion of the single market, to which my party is committed. Will he confirm a report that companies such as IBM are suggesting that, if liberalisation produces real savings, they may be channelled specifically towards research and development? That would be an interesting and useful breakthrough and I would be grateful if he could cast any light on the matter.
I notice that the President has identified three principal priorities, but he also mentioned a fourth issue: piracy and intellectual copyright, which, in his speech last week, he identified as costing consumers in the European Union about £2 billion. Was anything discussed at the conference that may cast light on progress on that issue?
Finally, the President of the Board of Trade has mentioned his proposals for a new international round of trade negotiations. Again, reports suggest that there was perhaps not as fulsome a welcome for the notion of a full-scale, all-singing, all-dancing new trade round as he might have hoped. Again, will he clarify the Government's position in this respect because, clearly,
758
although we are all anxious to have constructive developments along those lines, a whole new trade round is a slightly separate matter?
Mr. Lang: I thank the right hon. Lady for her welcome for various matters that I have reported to the House, in particular the improvement in import and export procedures, trade facilitation, the transparency of Government procurement, progress on standards and the working groups that are to be established on investment and competition. I agree that those are all major steps forward in the existing programme's agenda and that they set up the new work programme that the Government were keen to see.
On core labour standards, the right hon. Lady referred to other countries claiming a breakthrough. The declaration's conclusion agreed to the primacy of the International Labour Organisation as the body responsible for these matters, to support basic standards throughout the world—as all countries that have signed the United Nations convention on human rights do—to recognise that trade liberalisation helps to improve working standards in poor countries, and to confirm that there is no contemplation of any attack on developing countries.
There was no reference to a future work programme or to future continuing activity in the WTO on the matter. There was no mention of sanctions. There was a commitment only to the continuance of existing contacts. That agreement, as enshrined in the declaration, conforms exactly to the Government's position. I warmly welcome that sensible and realistic conclusion, which was widely supported by most countries throughout the world.
I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for her welcome for progress in the telecommunications sector and I agree about the desirability of further liberalising the single market in this respect. Indeed, considerable progress in working up the EU's offer has taken place in Europe. For example, Spain has brought forward its offer on liberalisation by several years.
On the question of savings and their application specifically to research and development, that is essentially a matter for the market, but I have not the slightest doubt that the extensive investment in R and D that takes place in the telecommunications industry will be enhanced. We are talking about additional telecoms traffic worldwide of $1,000 billion by the year 2010, and the United Kingdom's share of that is likely to exceed $20 billion. Therefore, if an agreement can be achieved by the middle of February next year, it will be a major breakthrough for the extremely well liberalised telecoms industry in the UK.

With regard to intellectual property rights, the conclusion was to reinforce the work already agreed in the Uruguay round. That will continue to be a high priority for the British Government.
Finally, on the right hon. Lady's question about a full trade round, there is—on the contrary—a growing commitment within the WTO membership to recognise the benefits that trade liberalisation brings. Through the agreement of the working programme, we are already moving de facto towards a new trade round, and I anticipate that at the next meeting of the WTO or the one after that, it should be possible to achieve an absolute commitment to make further progress in that respect.
Mr. John Redwood: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement and excellent progress in this

759
crucial area. What impact will that have on EC regulations and directives? As he has made such excellent progress in world liberalisation, do we need fewer EC regulations, because they are subsumed by the global progress?
Mr. Lang: Yes, I am happy to give my right hon. Friend that assurance. I mentioned, for example, the progress on telecommunications liberalisation achieved in working up the EU offer. In the other areas to which I referred—the working groups on investment, competition, Government procurement, standards and trade facilitation, which was one of the British-inspired initiatives—there will in every respect be an opportunity to dispense with unnecessary regulations. The trade facilitation initiative in particular enables us to tackle what the United Nations conference on trade and development—UNCTAD—has identified as about 10 per cent. of the value of trade in goods, so there are major opportunities ahead.
Mr. Nick Harvey: May I too welcome the progress that has been made, particularly in information technology, telecoms and—as I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) would want me to say—spirits tariffs. What discussion was there at Singapore about the environment? Does not conventional trade liberalisation often lead to environmental damage? Is it not important that we should cease to cling to the argument that economic growth must come before action to protect the environment? How does the President assess the environmental cost in relation to the benefit of any increase in trade that may result from the conference?
Mr. Lang: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. That is an important topic, on which some progress, albeit limited, was made at Singapore. The WTO committee on the environment and trade had made a useful start, and has now been made a permanent body, so environmental issues are increasingly recognised. My own view is that free trade and environmental protection are mutually supportive. Indeed, environmental protection creates a number of major trading opportunities for countries such as the United Kingdom, which is advanced in the provision of equipment and technology for reducing environmental pollution. This is an important area, on which there is still more work to be done.
Mr. Bill Walker: Has there been any progress with Japan, following the WTO ruling on whisky duty? My right hon. Friend's interest in whisky, and mine, is much deeper than just superficial.
Mr. Lang: As my hon. Friend says, the WTO ruled in favour of the European Union in that dispute. I am glad to say that the Japanese Government have accepted the ruling. They are still in negotiation with the EU and the United States and Canada about the final terms of the resolution of the dispute, but I am optimistic that it will be resolved shortly. Thus, in addition to the EU-US deal on spirits, there is also promise in the negotiations on the
760
taxation of whisky in Japan. I hope that that double measure of good cheer will cheer my hon. Friend up as we approach the festive season.
Mr. John Garrett: Did the conference take a position on the trade in armaments with oppressive regimes, such as Burma and Indonesia?
Mr. Lang: No. So far as I am aware, the trade in arms was not discussed at the conference.
Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that more than half our total export earnings come from countries outside the European Union, and that we run a large balance of payments surplus with those non-EU countries in the so-called invisible trade sector—that is, financial services and investment? If that is so, will my right hon. Friend continue his laudable efforts to liberalise that sector of trade, which would have a much more direct and beneficial influence on our future trade and prosperity than any other project, such as handing over our economic sovereignty to a European central bank?
Mr. Lang: I am not sure that all my hon. Friend's figures are correct. Our trade with Europe is about 60 per cent. of the total. However, our trade with countries outwith Europe, particularly the far east, is expanding very rapidly, and there are major long-term opportunities there. Moreover, we have a balance of trade surplus on the current account figures with every continent except Europe. To that extent, therefore, I can give my hon. Friend some encouragement. We have a global surplus in services of £6 billion, which I think applies in every continent in the world. That is extremely encouraging.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is the Minister aware that there is another story to be told? All the world trade liberalisation in which the Tory Government have taken part in the past 17 years has resulted in deregulation, in BSE, in longer working hours and in all the other problems that have arisen. Since 1983, it has resulted in a balance of payments deficit; and, in the past six years, under this Government, it has resulted in the doubling of the national debt, to £380 billion. It sounds like a barmy road to me. In the best days of Parliament, in the years after 1945, we had full employment, shorter working hours and regulations. We also had a surplus in our balance of payments. The net result of the Government's proposals is a move towards slave labour economies and towards the lowest common denominators, instead of searching for the highest common factor.
Mr. Lang: Clearly old Labour is still alive and living on the Opposition Benches. I do not recognise the picture painted by the hon. Gentleman. The policies pursued by the Government, including trade liberalisation, have created several years of falling unemployment, which is now more than 3 per cent. below the European average: record-breaking inward investment; rising manufacturing output, creating 150,000 jobs in the past three years; our exports beating records worldwide; and recognition by the OECD that the UK will have the fastest growth rate, not only in the European Union but, next year, among the G7.
Mr. John Wilkinson: May I express my appreciation for my right hon. Friend's good

761
work in Singapore and for his encouraging statement? But would not we all be much more encouraged if the objective of total elimination of tariffs and of non-tariff barriers were matched by progress in that sphere by the European Union, most notably in agricultural products? Is not such progress especially desirable as the communiqué set as a further objective special access for less-developed countries, many of which have large agricultural sectors?
Mr. Lang: I agree with my hon. Friend; it is an important subject which must be tackled further. Under the Uruguay round, the situation is due to be reviewed in 1999. Some progress was made in Singapore towards performing work of an analytical and reporting nature, which will be useful in enabling work on further liberalisation of agriculture to occur with more speed in 1999. I hope that the European Union will be a full-hearted participant in that work.
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Further to the question of the environment, will the Secretary of State tell us how he now hopes that progress will be made on environmental issues in further negotiations? Specifically, is he confident that such agreements as the Montreal protocol on chlorofluorocarbons, the Basle agreement on hazardous waste, and the London convention on international trade in endangered species will not fall foul of rules on world trade? Does he realise that it is important that we protect the environment, but that we are now putting that goal in conflict with further trade liberalisation?
Mr. Lang: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. Those are important issues, and the establishment now of a permanent committee on the environment will enable progress on the issues that he identified and on many others. The United Kingdom Government will be keen a participant in that work.
Mr. Gary Waller: Does my right hon. Friend agree that—in contrast to the remarks particularly of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinners—the United Kingdom has gained tremendously by inward investment in telecommunications by liberalising the market and encouraging competition? The United States telecommunications market remains in many respects relatively protectionist and at best favours reciprocal agreements. Has progress been made on opening up that market to British products and services?
Mr. Lang: I agree with the premise of my hon. Friend's question. Considerable progress has been made. The final date for an agreement is 15 February 1997. No doubt a great deal of intensive negotiation will be needed then. Provided the will exists—I believe that it does—there must be at least a reasonable prospect of the United States being a full-hearted participant in a final deal. The United States also stands to benefit enormously from the liberalisation of that massive industry.
Rev. Martin Smyth: Like others, I appreciate the President of the Board of Trade's upbeat report on the conference, particularly his welcome for the plan of action for more favourable and predictable access for exports from less-developed countries. Was there much discussion about the imbalance between the costs
762
of production in such countries and the high price of the same goods in developed countries? For example, it might cost £1 to manufacture trainers that sell for £40, £50 or £60 here or in another developed country. Where is the money going? How much can be poured back to help those developing countries to educate their work force?
Mr. Lang: I have considerable sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's point. In the European Council I pressed for recognition of the desirability of accepting zero tariffs on goods from the 48 least developed countries in the world, which account for 0.4 per cent. of world trade. There was not general agreement in the European Union or elsewhere on that. However, I am glad to say that we were able to make progress on giving technical assistance to the least developed countries, on helping them find access to markets, and on assuring them that there is no question, through trade and labour standards or other such measures, of penalising those areas in which they have a competitive advantage. We are keen to help them to exploit their competitive advantages, gain access to our markets and acquire the technology that will enable them to strengthen their position.
Mr. Nigel Forman: I believe that the United Kingdom is already the most open advanced economy in the world, exporting more per head than the Japanese and more in total than all the Asian tigers put together. If those facts are broadly correct, will my right hon. Friend assure the House that, while he holds his post—which I hope he will do for a long time—he will continue to lean against any tendency towards regional mercantilism among our partners on the continent, and will ensure that the World Trade Organisation has all the necessary powers and competencies to stop those tendencies gaining ground?
Mr. Lang: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I agree with the premise of his question. I also agree with the sentiments that he expressed. The WTO has a committee to deal with regional issues. There has been a substantial increase in the number of regional groupings. There must be a danger that some of those groupings enjoy a distortion of trade and that others are protectionist and inward-looking. It is our purpose to ensure that regional groupings have a multilateral outlook and form building blocks towards the multilateral free trade agenda recognised by the WTO.
Mr. Robert Sheldon: The right hon. Gentleman talked about maximum country co-operation. We all agree with that. Is he aware that China—a country that will play a greatly increasing role in world trade—is not in the World Trade Organisation? What is the right hon. Gentleman's view on the admission of China and encouraging it to enter the WTO?
Mr. Lang: I favour the admission of China, provided that it undertakes to accept the rules and observe them. The WTO already accounts for 90 per cent. of world trade. It has 126 members, but there are also some 30 applicants, of which China is one and Russia is another. I should like those major trading nations, particularly those with massive potential for the next century, to join the WTO, but it is important that they accept the disciplines of the organisation.
Mr. Jacques Arnold: My right hon. Friend and his departmental colleagues deserve

763
congratulation on the leading role that Britain, under their leadership, has played in the success of the Uruguay round of the general agreement on tariffs and trade and on their successes at the WTO conference in Singapore. However, he cannot rest on his laurels, because there is far too much foot-dragging in our regional grouping, the European Union, on providing proper free trade access into our market, especially for developing countries. Will he bear it in mind that countries in Latin America and elsewhere look to Britain to continue to give a lead in pressing for that from inside the European Union?
Mr. Lang: Yes, and developing countries—and the least developed countries—were grateful for the lead that the United Kingdom gave on core labour standards, on opening up our markets and on increasing the access to trade of the least developed countries. We shall continue that work.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: By what margin do the Japanese propose to reduce their impositions on whisky? Was there any discussion of the on-going Libyan sanctions? As a former Scottish Secretary and the Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale, the right hon. Gentleman, of all people, knows that there are grave doubts about Lockerbie. Given that the decision-makers in Libya were educated at British universities and technical colleges, is not the damage done by those sanctions to British industry enormous, especially as phase 3 of the great man-made river project is now worth some £10 billion? How is it that the Germans, Italians and South Koreans are trading merrily while British industry is disadvantaged by this American-led policy?
Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman referred to the D'Amato legislation, which affects Iran and Libya. That was not discussed at the conference. The question of Japanese whisky is still is under negotiation. Japan has yet to reach a final conclusion, but I have indications that the possibility of a substantial reduction in the duty on imported whisky is being contemplated.
Mr. Michael Fabricant (Mid-Staffordshire): Further to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) on the liberalisation of telecommunications, will my right hon. Friend confirm that he will do everything in his power to ensure that British Telecom's acquisition of MCI goes ahead? Would not a single market among WTO members—which, as he said, already accounts for 90 per cent. of world trade—make trading blocs such as the North American Free Trade Agreement and the EU irrelevant?
Mr. Lang: If we achieved global free trade, regional groupings would become irrelevant. That is why it is important to keep the groupings' eyes on the multilateral agenda and not allow them to become Fortress North America or Fortress Europe. I hope that my hon. Friend understands that it is not appropriate for me to comment on the ambitions abroad of British Telecom.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: The Secretary of State was rather reticent in his description of the problems of child labour and working conditions. What
764
does he seriously propose to do to eliminate child labour throughout the world by the enforcement of ILO conditions? Is he not concerned about the growing death rate in the economic zones of China and throughout south Asia in the new industries which is caused by appalling working conditions, the lack of trade union rights and health and safety legislation, and the enormous profits that British, North American and European companies make from such exploitation?
Mr. Lang: This country defers to no other in its condemnation of child labour and forced labour. We will continue to support the ILO in its efforts, through its conventions and other work, to rid the world of such activity. The WTO recognised that that was not an issue for it. It accepted the view that was advanced by me and by other countries that the best way to raise living standards in poor countries is to do more trade with them.
Mr. Roy Thomason: Does my right hon. Friend agree that world environmental standards can improve on the back of increased prosperity generated by tariff reduction, which must always remain the primary objective of events such as the Singapore conference, but that such matters should remain on the agenda?
Mr. Lang: Yes, I agree. I believe that at Singapore we made major progress towards reducing those tariffs.
Mr. Max Madden: Does the President recognise that condemnation of child and bonded labour is, in many people's view, wholly insufficient? Why was not the conference prepared to propose specific action to combat that scourge, including measures to assist poor countries to help children from poor families to receive an education rather than working themselves into a premature grave? Bangladesh, for example, is taking such action, and it would be greatly helped by support from the rich western world in its efforts to give its children an education rather than encouraging them into child labour.
Mr. Lang: I am happy to assure the hon. Gentleman that Bangladesh was among the leading countries warmly to welcome the stance of the United Kingdom Government on that issue. Bangladesh and other poor countries receive benefit from the United Kingdom, through our overseas aid programme, and they will receive help through the least-developed countries programme and through the International Labour Organisation, the work of which we support. The WTO is a rules-making body, and if it got involved in trade and labour standards, it would end up making rules that would regulate trade with those countries, impose sanctions and restrict trade. That would be the best way of driving them to even more extreme poverty.
Mr. Harry Barnes: When the World Trade Organisation recognises the International Labour Organisation, is that the equivalent of the social chapter, so that, as world free trade leads to child and slave labour, the ILO will have to take action to combat such arrangements? If that is so, and we are associated with the recognition of the ILO, will the Government stop slagging it off?
Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman has got it the wrong way round. Free trade and trade liberalisation increase

765
trade, and increased trade is the best way of raising living standards in poor countries. Living standards have improved dramatically in countless countries in the past 30 or 40 years, not through the imposition of sanctions, regulations, controls, embargoes or moratoriums, but through trade liberalisation. That is the best way forward.
Mr. Neil Gerrard: Is not the evidence of the past few years that trade liberalisation—this is not the first time that it has been suggested—has done absolutely nothing to deal with the problems of child and bonded labour? In fact, the number of child labourers is increasing, not decreasing. If that is the evidence of the past few years, why should we expect further liberalisation to make the situation any better?
Mr. Lang: I do not know what statistics the hon. Gentleman can produce in support of his claim, but in my experience every country that has had liberalised trade and has traded more freely with other countries has raised its living standards at all levels of society. That is the trend, and it is visible in countless countries in the far east which are emerging into modern, highly industrialised economies and providing major markets for British goods into the bargain.
Mr. Alan Simpson: Will the President reflect on the fact that in his opening statement he did not make a single reference to the environment, unless we were to assume that it was covered by anti-competitive practices? In the face of the evidence from development agencies, as well as environmental organisations, that free trade has brought an acceleration in the rate of environmental exploitation, the exploitation of children, child labour and slavery, does he recognise that there will have to be a re-regulation of some markets if ethical standards are to be imposed on the global trading area?
Will the President also comment on the criticism that is emerging from the developing nations about one aspect that is protected in the WTO agreement: intellectual property rights? At the moment, global corporations have the right to patent genetic lines for seeds, crops, animals and trees—and even for whole tribes—in the developing world.
Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman will have heard what I said in answer to an earlier question on intellectual property rights, concerning the reinforcement of the arrangements in the Uruguay round.
I did not mention the environment in my opening statement because there were so many items of positive good news to mention that I did not have time to cover everything. Again, as I said in an earlier answer, some positive progress was made on the environment, and we must build on that.
Mr. Denis MacShane: Can the President confirm that the most authoritative recent study shows that child labour has doubled in the past 10 years, particularly in its most odious form of sexual exploitation for business purposes? That is why the United States, third-world Churches, non-governmental organisations and European countries wanted the WTO to discuss the matter. His opposition to that is a mark of shame for our country. Before he hides behind the ILO, will he confirm
766
that it wants the WTO to discuss the matter? Will he also confirm that ILO discussion is meaningless without sanctions and that 18 months ago the Government wanted to withdraw from the organisation? To shelter behind the ILO is pure pre-Christmas hypocrisy.
Mr. Lang: I am not sheltering behind the ILO. The hon. Gentleman makes assertions about figures on child labour without a shred of evidence to support them. Trade liberalisation is raising standards and improving employment conditions in the emerging countries. I am in no doubt about that, and the vast majority of countries that were represented at Singapore shared that view. It is the right way forward, rather than going down the route of imposing sanctions.
Mr. Andrew Miller: Will the Secretary of State confirm that his statement on tariffs on information components applies equally to finished products and partly assembled units? Will such tariffs act consequentially to provide the transparency that he described? Will they result in changes to tax regimes here, and should we therefore expect a statement from the Chancellor of the Exchequer? Given the Secretary of State's statement on the amount of data that will flow through our telecoms systems, does he agree that, should the Geneva discussions on intellectual property rights not reach a fruitful conclusion in the near future, the matter must be a subject of the next trade round?
Mr. Lang: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the issue of intellectual property rights must be carried further. There are substantial advantages to be gained by this country—among others—if measures are better implemented to reduce piracy of intellectual property. The information technology agreement covers such products as computer hardware and software, semiconductors, integrated circuits, passive components, multi-media equipment, and so on. It does not cover consumer electronics. The savings that will flow are from the tariffs on imports and exports, which will flow to the European Union. I do not therefore envisage my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor making an announcement. The reduction in the cost of the products will be beneficial to everybody who uses them as well as those who make them.
Mr. Stuart Bell: The President of the Board of Trade touched lightly on the Uruguay round and the fact that there are so many loose ends yet to be tied up—on agriculture, financial services, maritime services, professional services and anti-dumping among others. Will he confirm that it is important to tie up those loose ends before we move to new multilateral trade negotiations in a few years' time?
Mr. Lang: It is indeed important to tie up those loose ends, conclude what has been agreed and, if possible, make further and faster progress. There was good progress on the built-in programme at Singapore, but we should not preoccupy ourselves with looking backwards to Uruguay, important though that was. We should also be able to focus on the forward momentum that I believe we have with the new work programme and the information technology and telecommunications deals, as well as the prospect of building towards a new round, which I hope will be announced before the end of the century.

Forensic Explosives Laboratory
4.12 pm
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Michael Howard): With permission, I should like to make a statement about the inquiry undertaken by Professor Caddy into the circumstances and implications of centrifuge contamination in the Forensic Explosives Laboratory at Fort Halstead.
The House will recall that, on 14 May, I announced that I had invited Professor Caddy, who is director of the forensic science institute at Strathclyde university, to undertake an inquiry into the discovery of RDX, a component of Semtex, in the centrifuge at the Forensic Explosives Laboratory. Professor Caddy was asked to report on the general question whether it was likely that contamination could spread from the centrifuge to samples under examination. He was also asked specifically to examine the laboratory's papers on all past cases in which RDX traces were found and a criminal conviction resulted, and to assess the likelihood that contamination might have occurred in those cases, and he was invited to examine the laboratory's procedures in the trace laboratory, and to make recommendations.
I am today publishing in full Professor Caddy's report as a Command Paper. I have also written to Professor Caddy setting out the Government's response to his report. Copies of the report and the response have been placed in the Library.
Before I turn to the substance of the report, I should like to place on record my thanks to Professor Caddy for undertaking the inquiry. The discovery of explosives contamination in the centrifuge was a grave matter, and one that raised serious questions about the reliability of the forensic evidence that had been submitted by the FEL in some serious criminal cases. I therefore decided to commission without delay an independent inquiry into the circumstances in which the contamination occurred and the implications of the discovery.
I was pleased that Professor Caddy, one of our foremost experts in forensic science and a man of considerable experience in forensic explosives matters, agreed to undertake the inquiry. I am grateful to him for completing that important work so promptly, and for submitting a clear and authoritative report. I should also like to thank Mr. James McQuillan, of the Forensic Science Agency of Northern Ireland, and Dr. Douglas Munro, of the United Kingdom accreditation service, whom Professor Caddy invited to assist him in his inquiry.
The key issue on which Professor Caddy was invited to give an opinion was whether it was likely that the centrifuge had contaminated forensic samples. Professor Caddy looked at all the 124 cases covering the period 1988 to March 1996 in which RDX traces were found and from those identified 14 in which such traces formed part of the evidence before the court, and in which a criminal conviction resulted.
Professor Caddy deals with each of those cases in detail in section 7 of his report. His overall conclusion is set out in section 8, in the following terms:
"From this evidence it can only be concluded that the results obtained from all cases remain a true measure of the presence of the explosive RDX and that no contamination of these casework samples arose from the contaminated centrifuge".
768
I accept Professor Caddy's findings on the key question of contamination. My officials have accordingly written today to the representatives of the 14 individuals in whose cases traces of RDX formed part of the evidence before the court and a criminal conviction resulted. In the letters, they state that I do not consider that the findings of the report necessitate the referral of any of the cases to the Court of Appeal. That does not, of course prevent further representations from being made on behalf of any of those individuals; but on the basis of Professor Caddy's conclusions, I find no grounds for initiating further action in respect of any of these cases.
I shall take this opportunity to correct a minor error of fact in my written answer to a question by my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Merchant) on 14 May, which was repeated in my statement on the following day. As Professor Caddy has discovered, the centrifuge was brought into service at the FEL in 1988, not in 1989 as was first thought. That does not affect the scope of the inquiry. All cases in which the centrifuge was used were examined by Professor Caddy.
The conclusion that Professor Caddy has reached on the question of contamination does not lead him to minimise the seriousness of the series of omissions that allowed the contamination in the centrifuge in the trace laboratory to remain undetected for so long. He describes that as a
"scientific oversight which is unacceptable and is to be much criticised".
Professor Caddy's terms of reference invited him to examine FEL procedures in the trace laboratory and to make recommendations. Section 11 of his report sets out 18 recommendations which, he believes,
"will both increase the effectiveness of the FEL and provide even greater protection from the possibilities of contamination".
He sets that in the context of the overall high standards that he found at the laboratory, concluding that
"the FEL along with the Forensic Science Agency of Northern Ireland are probably two of the world leaders in terms of the analytical procedures employed but especially the quality assurance programmes used to monitor the containment of trace levels of explosive".
Professor Caddy has made 18 recommendations. The Government accept 17 of them in full, and work on all those is already in hand. Of the 18 recommendations, 16 primarily concern changes to existing practices and equipment at the FEL, designed to improve the work environment still further. The Ministry of Defence, which is responsible for the FEL, is already taking forward work to ensure that the recommendations are implemented without delay. Resources will be made available to implement the changes that Professor Caddy proposes at the laboratory.
Two of Professor Caddy's recommendations are somewhat broader in focus and, with your permission, Madam Speaker, I shall say a few words about each of them. I turn first to the only recommendation that the Government do not accept in full. In recommendation 12, Professor Caddy says:
"The initial examination of all incendiary and explosive devices should be the sole prerogative of the two UK forensic science laboratories, FEL and FSANI, working in this area."
The Government agree that this work should normally be carried out at these laboratories—indeed, the great majority already is. But we believe that it would be wrong

769
to remove altogether the discretion on the part of the police to send devices to other laboratories from time to time if there is a sound reason for doing so.
I propose, therefore, to issue guidance to the police recommending that, unless there are sound operational reasons for doing otherwise, they should in future refer all incendiary and explosive devices in Great Britain to the FEL. The Secretary of State for Scotland will issue similar guidance to Scottish forces. In Northern Ireland, the RUC already refers all such work to the FSANI. I have discussed our response to this recommendation with Professor Caddy and he has expressed himself content with it.
Recommendation 18 also deserves special mention. In that recommendation, Professor Caddy states:
"Consideration should be given to the establishment of an Inspectorate of Forensic Sciences as a means of externally and independently monitoring the performance of laboratories in forensic science to the satisfaction of the forensic science community, the legal profession and most importantly the general public."
We accept that recommendation. We shall, indeed, consider whether to establish an inspectorate of the kind that Professor Caddy details in appendix 4 of his report, but I must also have regard to the proposals of the royal commission on criminal justice, which favoured the creation of a forensic science advisory council. Professor Caddy's recommendation implies a system of statutory regulation that is different from and more far-reaching than the approach favoured by the royal commission. I shall now consider both proposals before deciding how to proceed.
In this context, I welcome the proposals that are under consideration to set up a professional body for forensic science. I understand that preliminary meetings have now taken place involving representatives from various forensic science and other organisations. Lord Dainton—the Chairman of the Science and Technology Committee in another place, which reported on forensic science—is leading the initiative as president elect. I believe that this could be a useful initiative, and I shall therefore take a close interest in the progress made.
In summary, Madam Speaker, the Government accept the substance of all Professor Caddy's conclusions and recommendations. We accept in full 17 of his 18 recommendations and have already begun to implement them. We note the professor's conclusion that all the laboratory's analyses, in both case reports and court cases, remain valid. In particular, we note Professor Caddy's key conclusion that the safety of criminal convictions is not in question as a result of the discovery of the contaminated centrifuge. In the light of this, I have decided that the report does not necessitate the referral of any cases to the Court of Appeal.
We are determined to do all we can to ensure that an incident of this kind will never happen again. The FEL has a justifiably high reputation for its experience and for the high standard of its equipment and procedures. Professor Caddy's report does nothing to undermine this position in general, although it is clear that there are lessons which must and will be learned.
I commend Professor Caddy's report, and the Government's response to it, to the House.
Mr. Jack Straw: May I first thank the Secretary of State for his courtesy in allowing me time to read Professor Caddy's report? May I also express the
770
thanks of the Opposition to Professor Caddy—described by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) during our exchanges on 15 May as a "distinguished forensic scientist"—for the thoroughness of his work and the independence of mind that he has brought to bear on the report? I also want to place on record our thanks to those who assisted Professor Caddy.
Will the Secretary of State confirm that, although Professor Caddy raised some very important matters of concern—to which I shall refer in a moment—at no point did he question the integrity of our forensic science services or any of their staff? I am sure that the House will be relieved by the central conclusion of the report—that the evidence provided in every case during the period under examination remains valid. The Secretary of State was, however, right to entertain further representations on behalf of the individuals convicted on the evidence once they and their legal advisers have had a chance to consider the report—which, of course, they have not seen at this stage.
However, does the Secretary of State accept that some of the criticism in the report about working practices at the Forensic Explosives Laboratory is very serious? Does he also accept that Professor Caddy's conclusion at section 3.12, that "only serendipity"—a lucky happenstance—brought to light the absence of any testing during and following the installation of the centrifuge, is alarming indeed?
I want to press the Secretary of State on three other points. First, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman acknowledged in his statement, Professor Caddy recommended that all initial examinations of incendiary and explosive devices and other related evidence should be the sole prerogative of the two United Kingdom forensic science laboratories—the Forensic Explosives Laboratory and the Forensic Science Agency of Northern Ireland. The Secretary of State said that he will continue to allow the police to use other laboratories, if there are sound operational advantages in so doing. Does the Secretary of State agree that, given the strength of Professor Caddy's initial recommendations to confine all that work to the FEL and the FSANI, the use of other laboratories should be permitted only if the two main laboratories do not have the capacity at the time to carry out the investigation required by the police?
Secondly, will the Secretary of State accept that Professor Caddy evidently has significant concerns, expressed in section 9.5 of the report, about the way in which the agency status of those two laboratories might "inhibit an open exchange" between the staffs of these laboratories "because of commercial restraints"? Is the Secretary of State satisfied that the commercial restraints of agency status will not get in the way of the need, spelled out in section 9, to increase the intellectual challenge to members of those staffs by their meeting each other and exchanging information?
Thirdly, I want to press the Secretary of State on Professor Caddy's key recommendation to strengthen the independence of the forensic science services generally by establishing an independent inspectorate, which is contained in section 11 of the report and which is his personal recommendation in appendix 4. Does the Secretary of State accept that it is now four years since Professor Dainton called for an independent body to oversee the service and that that was followed by the report of the Royal Commission on criminal justice

771

recommending the establishment of a forensic science advisory council, which proposal was given further backing by the Lord Chief Justice?
Although I accept that there is some difference in the specific proposals, the Secretary of State will accept that there is overwhelming agreement among all those parties that there has to be an independent overseer of the forensic science services. Lord Taylor said more than two years ago that the need for such a body was urgent, so should not an advisory council now be established immediately, initially on a non-statutory basis because of the time that it would take at this stage of this Parliament to enact into law proposals for a statutory inspectorate, although that might well be what is needed?
Will the Secretary of State also accept that the continuing delay in the Government making up their mind about the need for an oversight body must add to the concerns that Professor Caddy expressed in his report? Was not Professor Caddy right to conclude that such an inspectorate or body is necessary "to restore public confidence" to the forensic science community who, in turn, perform such an essential role in our criminal justice system?
Mr. Howard: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the measured tone of his response and for his tribute to Professor Caddy and the work contained in his report. I entirely agree that some of the criticisms in Professor Caddy's report are serious and we intend to take them seriously, as is evidenced by the extent to which we have accepted his recommendations.
On the three specific points raised by the hon. Gentleman, first, I do not intend to limit the circumstances in which the FEL and the FSANI should be used by the police to the one set identified by the hon. Gentleman. I would expect that that would normally be the exceptional circumstance in which those laboratories would not be used, but I am not confident enough of my ability to identify all exceptional circumstances at this stage and would therefore prefer not to be tied down in that way.
On exchanges of information, we accept the recommendation that there should be regular meetings, and of course it is important that nothing should inhibit the quality of those exchanges in so far as they bear on matters of the type discussed by Professor Caddy in his report.
Finally, I accept the importance of reaching a decision soon on how we can best act on the desire of the royal commission and Professor Caddy for an independent voice in relation to forensic science, but the recommendations that they made are significantly different from one another, so I am not attracted by the hon. Gentleman's suggestion that I should set up a non-statutory advisory council immediately. I certainly do not exclude the possibility of proceeding, in the first instance, on a non-statutory basis, but I prefer to consider more fully Professor Caddy's recommendation and its relationship with the royal commission's recommendation, and the further developments such as those that I identified, which are proceeding, before I reach a final view on the matter.
Mr. Phil Gallie: In commending my right hon. and learned Friend on initiating the report, may I
772
suggest that not only the forensic science community but the public at large should take satisfaction from the report? It will restore the public's confidence in the forensic science system.
Mr. Howard: I entirely agree with that important point. It is not surprising that some anxiety was expressed when those events came to light, when I commissioned the inquiry, but I believe that the public can have confidence in the outcome of Professor Caddy's report; I agree with my hon. Friend and am grateful for his question.
Mr. A. J. Beith: Does the Home Secretary agree that it will be a relief for all those involved in protecting the public against the bombing campaign that, despite the errors that were made, Professor Caddy has firmly concluded that convictions are not put in doubt by what happened? Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman recognise the implicit criticism of resourcing in Professor Caddy's report? How much money will be made available for the management and research resource requirements that Professor Caddy identified?
On independent monitoring, is it not a little odd, as for at least three years the Home Secretary has resisted setting up an advisory council, that he should now use that as a reason for not setting up a statutory inspectorate? Will he at least say that he is committed to setting up a form of independent monitoring, whichever form is eventually chosen?
Mr. Howard: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his first question. Indeed it is a matter of relief that Professor Caddy came to the conclusions that he reached. I do not entirely accept the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion that the report contains what he described as "implicit criticism" of resource inadequacy; but, in answer to his question, we estimate that the cost of implementing Professor Caddy's recommendations is about £500,000, and those resources will be made available.
On the last point, the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion is unworthy. There have been several developments in forensic science since the royal commission reported; they should be fully taken into account. I recognise that there is a strong case for an independent role, and I hope to reach a conclusion on that matter as soon as possible.
Mr. Kevin McNamara: The whole House will be indebted to Professor Caddy for his report. He is a distinguished forensic scientist.
The Home Secretary said that he saw no grounds for referring cases to the Court of Appeal, but he appeared to anticipate that, when legal representatives of convicted people obtain copies of the report, they might seek to go to the Court of Appeal again on the basis of what is in the report. First, as many hon. Members have not had an opportunity to examine the report, will the Home Secretary tell the House why he feels that those people may seek to go to the Court of Appeal again?
Secondly, he will recall that, in a recent case, a senior official in the forensic science service was highly criticised for his lack of qualifications by, I believe, the Lord Chief Justice on appeal. Is that person involved in any of those cases?
Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman was reading rather too much into my remarks. As I said, I do not believe that

773
any grounds arising out of this report would justify any of the cases concerned being referred to the Court of Appeal. However, I have learnt over a long period not to underestimate the ingenuity of lawyers. I said that it was open to representatives of those involved in those cases to make further representations suggesting that the cases should be referred, and that any such representations would be considered.
I do not have available a specific answer to the last part of the hon. Gentleman's question. I have no reason to suppose that the person to whom he referred was involved, but perhaps I can write to the hon. Gentleman on that matter.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: I am not complaining too stridently, but the document to which the Home Secretary referred was not available in the Vote Office shortly before he rose to make his statement; therefore, I do not know what the report says about the crucial Lockerbie evidence, about which there is considerable forensic doubt. I refer to the timing device or, more accurately, the sliver of timing device, which was the subject of considerable controversy both at the Royal Armaments Centre and in the United States, where considerable doubt has been thrown on the findings of Mr. Thurman, not least by Mr. Whitehurst, another expert. Rather than answer off the top of his head, will the Home Secretary write to me in detail about this aspect of crucial forensic evidence in the Lockerbie case? It leads to the involvement of Libyan sanctions, which, as was said in the last statement, are so damaging to British industry.
Mr. Howard: Once the hon. Gentleman has read the report, he may find that the essential point that he raised is covered in it. I am, however, perfectly prepared to write to him to answer his question as best I can. I am not entirely confident whether I shall provide in my reply sufficient detail to satisfy the hon. Gentleman, but I shall do my best.
Mr. Chris Mullin: Having been familiar with Professor Caddy's work over the years, I am happy to accept his conclusion that none of the forensic evidence in any of the cases has been disturbed. However, a number of cases in the not too distant past involved mistakes—or worse—by forensic scientists. Two problems have arisen: one is that an unhealthily close relationship developed between the police and some forensic scientists—in the Guildford case, for example, they were not above rewriting their evidence at the police's suggestion; and the second is that forensic facilities have often not been available to the same extent to defence lawyers, so they have been unable to test the prosecution's propositions. Is the Home Secretary satisfied that both those problems have now been resolved?
Mr. Howard: That matter is, of course, quite beside the matters that gave rise to Professor Caddy's report, and quite beside his report. I have no reason to suppose that defence lawyers do not have adequate facilities to enable them to benefit from forensic science, but that matter is not directly raised as a result of the report.
Mr. Paul Flynn: Those of us who have spent years working in laboratories will have
774
listened to the statement with astonishment. It is basic to any analytical procedure that a test is run first on possible contamination of all the instruments involved. We have heard today of incompetence on a mountainous scale. It is hard to believe that a centrifuge was left in that condition for a prolonged time. Is the contaminant to which the Home Secretary referred the only indicator of the presence of Semtex or are there other indicators? Although it is impossible to argue with the conclusion made by a report that few of us have read so far, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell us for how long that centrifuge was contaminated, and whether RDX is the only indicator of the presence of Semtex?
Mr. Howard: I shall resist the temptation to accept the hon. Gentleman's invitation to go into areas of technical expertise that I do not possess. I am satisfied that, when the hon. Gentleman has had the opportunity to read the report, he will find his concerns fully and more than adequately dealt with. There were serious shortcomings, as Professor Caddy reveals in his report, although I am not sure that they add up to the kind of criticism contained in the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question.
Mr. Alan Simpson: I thank the Home Secretary for his statement and Professor Caddy for his report. Will the Home Secretary comment specifically on the case of John Kinsella, whose name was included in the review even though he was not convicted on the basis of any forensic evidence that suggested that he had been in touch with Semtex? I know that the Home Secretary has been reviewing that case in detail and, I believe, has now received the statements from Pairic MacFhloinn in prison, who has accepted responsibility for the Warrington bombings and who has said, on record and specifically, that my constituent, John Kinsella, had no knowledge of the contents of the holdall with which he was left. Can the Home Secretary add any further comments on the review that he has undertaken, specifically in relation to John Kinsella's case?
Mr. Howard: No, I am afraid that I cannot add anything this afternoon. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the basis on which representations have been made in that case is not connected with the presence of explosives. He is also right to say that representations have been made in that case; they are currently receiving careful attention in the Home Office.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Like many Members, I have not read the report and therefore cannot quarrel with any of its conclusions. In his statement, the Home Secretary accepted the view that there should be some degree of independent examination of the work done by the Forensic Explosives Laboratory, but specifically excluded the sending of samples to any other laboratory for testing. Those two points seem to contradict each other. When does the Home Secretary propose that an independent testing regime will be set up? After all, we have had a shocking exposé from Professor Caddy of serious shortcomings in the laboratory.
Mr. Howard: I think, with respect, that the hon. Gentleman slightly misunderstood what I said. Far from saying that I would not agree to have samples sent to other laboratories, I rejected, in part, one of Professor Caddy's

775
recommendations that samples should be sent only to the FEL and FSANI. The Government's view is that, although that should normally be the case, there are circumstances in which it would reasonable for the police to use other laboratories. I cannot give a specific timetable for my decision on an independent role, but I recognise the need to come to a view on that matter as soon as possible.

BILLS PRESENTED
  SALE OF MEDICINES (YOUNG PEOPLE)
  Mr. Paul Flynn presented a Bill to make it unlawful to sell medicinal products to people under the age of sixteen: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 28 February 1997, and to be printed [Bill 63].
  DISABLED PERSONS AND CARERS (SHORT-TERM BREAKS)
  Mr. Alfred Morris, supported by Ms Liz Lynne, Sir Richard Body, Mr. Dafydd Wigley, Mrs. Margaret Ewing, Rev. Martin Smyth, Mr. Roger Berry, Mr. Peter Thurnham, Mr. John Heppell, Mr. Ken Eastham, Mr. Harry Barnes and Mr. Tom Cox, presented a Bill to provide for assessments of health and social needs of disabled persons to include assessments of the needs for short-term breaks for the disabled person and any carer: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 24 January 1997, and to be printed [Bill 62].

  <2> Pairing Arrangements
  4.43 pm
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Has information about the Division last night been a subject of concern for you, in view of the fact that it seems that the Tory Government paired some of the absent Tory Members of Parliament with people on the Labour Benches and doubled them up with people on the Liberal Benches? In other words, they rigged the ballot. In all my 27 years here, I have never heard of anything like that before. It needs a serious investigation, because the Government are in trouble with their lack of a majority and they might do it again and again.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): I have to inform the hon. Gentleman that that subject has nothing to do with the Chair.

Abortion (Amendment)
4.43 pm
Mr. David Amess: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend section 1(1) of the Abortion Act 1967 in relation to the grounds on which a pregnancy may be terminated.
It is Christmas and the whole country seems to be immersed in preparations to celebrate that day. It is not a matter for conjecture—Christmas will be celebrated on 25 December and that is the day that the infant Jesus was born. There was an interesting editorial in the Sunday Express this weekend that posed the question of how many people actually think about the real purpose behind the celebration of Christmas. In the same newspaper, there was another excellent article by Mr. Enoch Powell about the issues that are debated in Parliament these days and the nature of our debates. I had the privilege to be present in the Chamber when Enoch Powell moved a similar Bill and I can only lament that, for various reasons, we no longer have such profound debates on fundamental issues. This is the perfect time for the House to spend a little while considering the plight of babies who are never allowed to develop and be born. I refer to abortion.
The House is familiar with the arguments deployed in support of the Abortion Act 1967 when it was originally introduced. The intentions of the Act were clear at the time. My Bill would support that Act in spirit and in practice. Those who support abortion per se explain their views by saying that a woman has a right to choose and they ask what the state does with unwanted babies. Last year, 163,621 abortions were carried out in England and Wales. Did every one of those women choose not to conceive a child? Is it really possible that so many women had abortions because the risk of injury to the physical or mental health of the mother or existing children was greater than if the pregnancies were terminated? To me, that seems beyond comprehension.
The current clinical interpretation of the Abortion Act 1967, in effect, means that any woman can have a termination if she wishes as long as gestation is under 24 weeks. That fact was highlighted in the summer when a healthy twin was aborted for purely social reasons and a senior gynaecologist admitted on BBC Radio 4:
"There is abortion on demand … if a woman wants an abortion, she gets one".
Aborting any foetus is contrary to the original intentions of the Abortion Act of some 30 years ago, which was passed to allow abortions only in a restricted number of cases. Furthermore, with increasing evidence of the humanity of the foetus, those abortions raise serious moral and ethical issues.
Section 1(1)(a) of the Abortion Act 1967 provides no yardstick, thus allowing abortion on demand, sometimes quite late in a pregnancy as we saw with the twin who was killed after 16 weeks. In 1979, Sir Ian Percival, then the Solicitor-General, told a Standing Committee that was considering tightening the grounds for abortion that there was bound to be some risk in every continuing pregnancy, which makes nonsense of the law as it stands at present. He was discussing the inclusion of the word "substantially" before the phrase
"greater than if the pregnancy were terminated"
in order to make the test more stringent and more than merely a statistical evaluation.

777
While the Bill would be only a small improvement, we are still left with the words "risk" and "injury", neither of which are quantified. Having a stitch or two in the cervix could be regarded by some doctors as an injury, but it would hardly justify the killing of the child in the womb. We therefore need to make it clear that both the risk and the injury must be serious.
Evidence is emerging of the long-term damage caused by abortion, not the least of which is the possibility of breast cancer following abortion. Current figures show a 30 per cent. increase in the incidence of breast cancer among women who have had abortions. There is also evidence from all over the world of women suffering years of trauma as a result of abortions that they imagined would be simple procedures and the answer to an immediate problem. Only this month, the British Medical Journal carried a paper on suicide after pregnancy in Finland from 1987 to 1994. The general suicide rate in Finland for that period was 11.3 per 100,000 and the rate associated with birth was significantly lower at 5.9. However, the suicide rate associated with miscarriage was 18.1 and it soared to 34.7 for induced abortion—significantly higher than in the population at large.
Some years ago, Westminster hospital published a research paper about attempted suicides among teenagers in its catchment area. The only significant statistic to emerge was that the suicide rate was seven times greater among girls who had had abortions compared with the control group. That figure increased to nine times greater when compared with teenage girls in the population at large. The research was decried on the ground that it was statistically too small, but I have heard of no follow-up investigation. In 1992, a short-term study published in the British Journal of Psychiatry found that 10 per cent. of women undergoing abortions suffered from psychological damage or trauma.
My Bill would not alter those sections of the Act that allow abortions in order to save the mother's life. It would not alter the sections dealing with grave and permanent injury to the mother or with the handicapped. It would tighten that part of the Act, section 1(1)(a), under which 97 per cent. of abortions are carried out. It would state quite simply that an abortion would be granted only if there was a significant risk to the mother of serious injury and if that risk was substantially greater than the risks inherent in every pregnancy. It would see an end to abortion on demand—which was never the intention of the 1967 Act. It would do what the present laws are meant to do but what they singularly fail to do: protect the woman and the child. I commend the Bill to the House.
4.52 pm
Mrs. Anne Campbell: I rise to oppose the Bill. Abortion is an issue about which many people feel strongly—and it is not difficult to understand why. Some hon. Members hold particularly strong views on the subject and have declared their intention to use every opportunity to raise the issue on the Floor of the House. It is their right to do so, but they should appreciate—and we should remember—that, although they are very vocal, they represent a view that is held by a very small minority.
778
When a Sunday newspaper commissioned a MORI opinion poll following the controversy about abortions that occurred this summer, it found that 81 per cent. of respondents agreed or tended to agree with the statement:
"It is important for pregnant women to have the right to choose whether or not to continue their pregnancy".
Only 10 per cent. disagreed or tended to disagree and 9 per cent. neither agreed nor disagreed or had no opinion on the matter. The great majority of people in this country accept that abortion is regrettable but sometimes necessary.
Perhaps most people feel that way because they are sympathetic to the plight of women with problem pregnancies and they have some sense of what it might mean to force a woman to bear a child when she believes, and her doctors agree, that she could not cope. It is all very well for Members of Parliament to hold the strong view that abortion should not be allowed when a foetal abnormality is detected. They have the right to propose legislation that would prohibit such abortions. However, when we discuss such measures we should remember that we, personally, would not have to live with the consequences if the law were so amended.
It is the women denied abortion and their families who would suffer the consequences of such a restriction. Their lives—not ours—would be profoundly changed by the need to care for a child with a serious disability. In many cases, the other children in the family would suffer most. Organisations such as Support Around Termination for Foetal Abnormality, which provides counselling and assistance for those whose pregnancies are affected, know how important the option of abortion is. They know that the choice of abortion is valued even by those who choose not to take it.
Most abortions in this country are performed because the pregnancy is unwanted in circumstances where two doctors agree that it would be damaging to the mental wellbeing of the woman if she were forced to continue it. They are the abortions that some hon. Members are particularly keen to prohibit. But have they thought about what it would mean in practice? Have they thought about what it would really mean for a woman to bear a child that she desperately does not want?
Contraception is not fail-safe. Organisations such as the Birth Control Trust remind us frequently that about a third of pregnancies are conceived by women who say that they were using contraception when they became pregnant. About 50 per cent. of pregnancies are unplanned. Not all unplanned pregnancies will be unwanted, but many will be and we must think carefully about the consequences for individual women and for the whole of society if such women are forced to have those children against their will.
Motherhood is a great responsibility—it is difficult even for those who embrace it willingly. It is worth stating that no woman ever wants to have an abortion. However, many believe that it is the best solution to a dire problem. We have only to look to Northern Ireland to see what happens when legal abortion is severely restricted. Every year, more than 2,000 desperate women travel to England for the procedure. More than 4,000 women travel to England from Eire, where abortion is illegal in all circumstances. Those who

779
cannot afford to travel here sometimes try to abort themselves—that is what happened in Britain before the Abortion Act 1967 allowed safe, legal abortion.
Women have consciences and so do their doctors. Abortion is not a casual choice by women who cannot be bothered to use contraception: it is the last resort of those who are pregnant and who are convinced that it would be better if the potential child were not born. It would be a tragedy for the women if the abortion law were restricted.
The Abortion Act 1967 has served women and their doctors well. Those who oppose abortion in principle like to remind us that there have been almost 4 million legal abortions since the Act became law. They sometimes claim that that is an abhorrence. It is possible to interpret that figure differently and see it as a measure of the benefit that the Act has conferred on women and their existing families: that number of abortions took place because that number was necessary for the well-being of women and their families.
The debate on the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 allowed the opportunity for considerable debate about amendments to the abortion law. The issues were discussed in great detail and some changes were made to the law. The Bill that the hon. Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess) seeks to put before the House is not motivated by new developments or discoveries that require the Act to be amended. Public opinion is not pressing for a change in the law. The need for abortion on the grounds that it is currently provided in this country remains as pressing today as in 1967.
It is the responsibility of those who sit in the House to draft and pass legislation that affects the everyday lives of the millions of people who live in this country. It is right that we take into account issues that are perceived to be morally difficult or troublesome, but we would be doing the women of this country a great disservice if we allowed access to safe, clinical procedure to be more restricted than it is at present. I ask the House to oppose the Bill.
Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 19 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business), and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. David Amess, Mr. David Alton, Mr. Joe Benton, Sir Graham Bright, Mr. Edward Leigh, Mr. Thomas McAvoy, Mr. John
780
McFall, Mr. Robert Parry, Mrs. Elizabeth Peacock, Rev. Martin Smyth, Dr. Robert Spink and Mrs. Ann Winterton.

Abortion (Amendment)

  ABORTION (AMENDMENT)
  Mr. David Amess accordingly presented a Bill to amend section 1(1) of the Abortion Act 1967 in relation to the grounds on which a pregnancy may be terminated: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 24 January 1997, and to be printed [Bill 64].
  Mr. Edward Leigh: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it not the convention of the House that, if an hon. Member speaks against a ten-minute Bill, he normally votes against it? This is the second time in two weeks that those who oppose us on abortion issues have not had the nerve or the courage to force a Division. The country wants a decision on this matter, but those hon. Members have not had the nerve to force a Division.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): It is a convention that hon. Members can oppose but are not obliged to vote.
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I sat through the debate on the ten-minute Bill. Am I not right in thinking that the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) asked the House to oppose the excellent Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess)? She made a positive statement to that effect at the end of her speech. It is surely a waste of the House's time to make such a statement and then not carry it through to a vote.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a matter on which I can rule.
  Mr. David Harris: Further to the original point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. For a long time it was a convention of the House—I have heard occupants of the Chair say this—that, if hon. Members opposed a ten-minute Bill, they had to follow their opposition through to a vote. Is that correct?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not correct. [Interruption.] I call the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) to order. In my time in the House and in the Chair, hon. Members on both sides of the House have opposed such Bills, but have not forced a vote.

Orders of the Day

  Protection from Harassment Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  5.4 pm
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Michael Howard): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  The Bill has one simple aim: to protect the victims of harassment.—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. Will hon. Members who are leaving the Chamber please do so quietly?
  Mr. Howard: In the past year, a number of highly publicised stalking cases have come to public attention. They have highlighted the need to give the courts more effective powers to deal with stalkers. The Bill covers not only stalkers, but disruptive neighbours and those who target people because of the colour of their skin.
  The hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Ms Anderson) raised the issue of stalking in the summer, with her private Member's Bill. The hon. Lady deserves to be congratulated on her initiative in raising the matter, and I do so, but there had been no opportunity to consult on her proposals, and her Bill had significant deficiencies.
  The hon. Lady's Bill attempted to specify the behaviour that amounted to stalking. The conduct known as stalking can take many forms. Even though the list set out in the hon. Lady's Bill was not intended to be exhaustive, it would have served to focus the attention of the courts on the behaviour represented in it. Other types of behaviour, which might be just as distressing for the victim, might, in effect, have been excluded because of the way in which her Bill was drafted. Those points were made in response to the consultation exercise the Government carried out on our proposals. It is therefore particularly mystifying that Opposition Front Benchers have tabled amendments to this Bill that would reproduce those defects.
  Furthermore, the hon. Lady's Bill created strict offences: people would have had to prove their innocence if they had carried out any of the actions described in her Bill. There were no safeguards for journalists or others whose legitimate activities were similar to the actions that amounted to stalking. Those are serious deficiencies when we are dealing with behaviour that, in many instances, is ordinary and does not merit criminalisation. It is necessary to distinguish between instances when such behaviour is acceptable and when it is not.
  That was not just the Government's view. As Dr. Evonne von Heussen-Countryman, the director of the national anti-stalking and harassment campaign, said:
  "A bad Bill is worse than no Bill … and her proposals"—
  referring to the hon. Lady's Bill—
  "were not precise enough. You have to be able to defend legitimate activities such as debt collecting against the stalking charge".
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Why is the Secretary of State so confident that he has now got the Bill right, given that people outside have had only 10 days to examine it and to comment on it?
  Mr. Howard: If the hon. Gentleman had waited, he would have discovered that I propose to explain precisely why the Bill remedies those deficiencies. His point about the length of time that the Bill has been available is absurd, given the extent and detail of the consultation on the proposals before they were enshrined in it.
  I believe that the proposals in the Bill will be effective, and will provide the protection for victims of harassment that I am sure—I think I am sure—all hon. Members want to achieve.
  Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: The Home Secretary said that the Bill covers racially motivated harassment. Where exactly in the Bill does that appear?
  Mr. Howard: It is not necessary to refer to racial harassment for the Bill to cover activities that constitute harassment on grounds of race as well as on other grounds.
  The Bill overcomes the difficulty of defining stalking by focusing on the harmful effect that this activity has on its victims. At one level, stalkers cause their victims harassment. The Bill therefore creates civil and—in England and Wales—criminal measures to deal with situations where harassment is caused. That approach is not new—action against harassment was taken in the Public Order Act 1986—but the present Bill goes much further. It also creates a new civil tort, and provides both the civil and criminal courts with powers to make orders to protect the victims of harassment from future actions by their tormentors.
  Dr. John Reid: In the light of what he has just said, can the Home Secretary explain why more than 1,000 days have passed since the first proposals were tabled in the form of amendments to the Bill that became the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 during its Committee stage? In fact, I think that some 1,016 days have passed. Why has it taken two and a half years to present these proposals to the House?
  Mr. Howard: Because, as has been apparent from previous attempts to deal with it, this is a difficult matter. We were, for example, keen to learn as much as possible from experience of how such matters were dealt with overseas, to see whether we could benefit from such knowledge. We were anxious to get the proposals right.
  It is no good one Opposition Member saying that the measures have been rushed through, and another saying minutes later that the process has taken far too long. We have been very careful to get our proposals right and to consult fully on them, and we are now confident that the Bill represents an effective way forward.
  Dame Angela Rumbold: As it stands, the Bill refers to harassment or stalking that causes upset and distress. A constituent of mine is being harassed by a group of people. Will the Bill, as it were, tie up the various criminal acts to which I believe that group is subjecting my constituent? Not just one person, but a group of people, is causing considerable harassment to a single woman with a family, and I should like to be reassured that the Bill will help.
  Mr. Howard: As my right hon. Friend will appreciate, it is difficult for me to give a categorical answer without

  783
  knowing the details of the case. I can certainly confirm, however, that the Bill will cover groups of people who perpetrate such offences, as well as individuals. I hope that that gives my right hon. Friend the reassurance that she and her constituent want.
  Mr. Paddy Tipping: Will the Home Secretary give way?
  Mr. Howard: I will, but then I must make progress.
  Mr. Tipping: The Home Secretary said earlier that the Bill would apply to nuisance neighbours, and then described harassment and its definition. The Bill's definition is clear: harassment is described as what a reasonable person would consider to be harassment. Many hon. Members know about nuisance neighbours, and a good many people consult them about the problem. Those people have ceased to be reasonable. I fear that the Bill is too widely drafted, and will not help in such circumstances.
  Mr. Howard: I think that the hon. Gentleman is confused. Of course it is true that some people are driven by the activities of others, sometimes neighbours, to a state in which they may not have all the attitudes of a reasonable person; but that is not what the Bill refers to. The Bill lays down that the test of guilt in regard to harassment should be whether an offender is committing actions that a reasonable person in the position of the offender would expect to give rise to harassment.
  The greatest difficulty that the police find in using existing legislation against stalkers is the need to prove the intention of the stalker. These provisions dispense with that requirement, so that a person who pursues a course of conduct that he ought to have known would cause harassment will commit an offence. A person ought to know that his course of conduct would amount to harassment in circumstances in which a reasonable person, in possession of the same information, would think that that course of conduct would cause the person at whom it was directed the effects of harassment, such as alarm or distress. The maximum sentence for the criminal offence of harassment will be six months' imprisonment and/or a level 5 fine.
  We believe that that test gets the balance right between the need to protect victims from the destructive behaviour of stalkers and the need to prevent the courts from being used for the pursuit of frivolous claims. A victim would have to show that harassment had been caused, and that the stalker ought to have known that that would be the effect of his actions—and stalkers will no longer be able to claim as a defence that they did not intend to harass their victims.
  By defining the offence in terms of the effect that the actions have on the victim, the proposals in the Bill will catch activity that causes harassment, irrespective of whether it might be termed stalking or something else. I have in mind, in particular, conduct that causes racial harassment. The Bill will catch that conduct if the conduct occurs on more than one occasion, and in circumstances in which the perpetrator ought to have
  784
  known that his words or behaviour would cause harassment, alarm or distress. Similarly, those who harass their neighbours through a course of conduct would fall within the ambit of this offence, as harassment may be caused in or from a private house. The Bill therefore builds on the provisions of section 4A of the Public Order Act 1986.
  The Bill also provides some specific defences. It will be a defence to show that the conduct was pursued for the prevention and detection of crime, or under an enactment or rule of law. Because of the nature of the activities pursued by stalkers, unless special provision is made, some police activities could be caught by the Bill. That, of course, is not our intention. I am also aware that the activities of journalists, salesmen, religious activists, debt collectors, private investigators and even political canvassers might fall within the scope of the Bill. We have therefore provided a defence of acting reasonably in the particular circumstances of the case in order to safeguard these legitimate activities.
  We have not defined harassment itself. Harassment as a concept has been interpreted regularly by the courts since 1986. Some 100 cases were dealt with by the courts in 1995 under section 4A of the 1986 Act, 40 leading to a conviction. However, to avoid doubt, the Bill makes it clear that harassment includes causing someone alarm or distress, and that a course of conduct includes speech.
  As well as the summary offence of causing harassment, the Bill creates a second, more serious, criminal offence in England and Wales—that of causing someone to fear violence. Where the level of harassment caused places someone in fear of violence being used against them, more severe penalties are required to reflect the gravity of the conduct. The maximum penalty for that offence will be five years' imprisonment and/or an unlimited fine.
  As I have said, the Bill creates civil and criminal measures in England and Wales. Criminal proceedings can deal only with offences that have already been committed; the criminal law cannot provide protection for someone who might reasonably expect that he or she might be subject to harassment in the future. Nor does it provide adequate protection where the evidence does not satisfy the criminal standard of proof. A conviction in criminal proceedings requires the jury or magistrates to be satisfied, beyond reasonable doubt, that the defendant committed the offence. In civil proceedings, the court needs to be satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the defendant harassed the victim.
  Civil proceedings also enable victims to be compensated for the distress and disturbance to their lives that harassment causes, just as they are when any other tort is committed. Civil proceedings would be taken by a victim, or a potential victim, where the need is to prevent the stalker from pursuing, or beginning a course of conduct. Action in the civil courts would be appropriate, for example, if just one act of harassment had taken place but there was fear that further acts would be committed, which would constitute a course of conduct. The civil courts could—if persuaded on the balance of probabilities that it was necessary to do so—grant an injunction, preventing the stalker from carrying out any specified activity which would amount to harassment. Breach of an order made under the tort

  785
  created in the Bill would, if proved beyond reasonable doubt, be a criminal offence punishable by up to five years' imprisonment and/or an unlimited fine.
  When dealing with criminal offences that cause harassment, or cause someone to fear violence, we need not only to punish offenders for their actions but to reassure the victim that it will not happen again. As I have just said, the civil law provides a remedy in such circumstances.
  We have, however, listened carefully to people who have argued that it cannot be right in circumstances such as these to require a victim to go through a second hearing in a civil court, following a conviction in a criminal court, to gain an order preventing future harassment. We therefore think it right that criminal courts should have the power, when sentencing a person for an offence committed under the Bill, to make an order restraining a person from pursuing further conduct against the victim—or any other person named in the order—which amounts to harassment, or will cause fear of violence.
  A breach of an order made under the Bill, if proved to the criminal standard—beyond reasonable doubt—will itself be a criminal offence. The offence will carry a maximum penalty of five years in prison and/or an unlimited fine. That will enable breaches to be dealt with quickly, with the involvement of the police. Where the risk to the victim is sufficiently serious, the offender can be held in custody. The breach of a civil order under the Bill may be dealt with as contempt of court rather than as a criminal matter.
  Mr. Kevin McNamara: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is talking about offences committed under the Bill and the fact that a person who breaches it may then be subject to another criminal offence. What if a person is convicted under another statute, but harassment takes place afterwards? Would it be possible for the judge to inform the convicted person that, if he indulged in harassment, he would automatically be subject to another criminal offence?
  Mr. Howard: I am not sure that it would be open to the judge to say anything precisely along those lines. It would of course be open to the judge, as it is at the moment, to draw the attention of someone who has been convicted and who is before him of the perils that he will face if he continues with a particular course of conduct. As I have sought to explain, there will be particular new and additional remedies available to the victim in such circumstances, but I am not sure that the precise warning that the hon. Gentleman has in mind would be the sort of language that would be likely to emanate from the judicial bench.
  I have set out the aims of the Bill as it applies to England and Wales. In Scotland, the aims are identical. The existing common law in Scotland already adequately covers acts that cause harassment, so no new criminal offences are proposed. A new delict—the Scottish equivalent of a tort—is, however, provided for in the Bill.
  The Government have tabled an amendment that would allow the Bill's provisions to be extended to Northern Ireland by negative resolution. It is important that the people of Northern Ireland are offered the same protection from harassment as people in the rest of the United Kingdom.
  786
  I have set out the principles that lie behind the Bill and why we believe that it will offer an effective remedy against harassment. It may help the House if I briefly explain the Bill's structure.
  Clause 1 describes the course of conduct that amounts to harassment in England and Wales and sets out the defences available. Clause 2 makes it a criminal offence for a person to pursue a course of conduct in breach of clause 1. Clause 3 creates a civil tort in relation to the course of conduct described in clause 1. Clause 4 creates the more serious offence of pursuing a course of conduct that puts someone in fear of violence. Clause 5 gives criminal courts the power, when sentencing a person for an offence under clause 2 or 4, to make a restraining order.
  Clause 6 provides that actions for damages under clause 3 are subject to a six-year limitation period rather than the three-year period applicable to personal injury cases. Clause 7 defines certain terms used in the earlier clauses, notably that a course of conduct is conduct that occurs on at least two occasions, and includes speech.
  Clauses 8 to 11 apply to Scotland. Clause 8 creates a delict. Clause 9 provides that breach of an order made under clause 8 is a criminal offence, similar to the provisions for England and Wales. Clause 10 allows for the award of damages. Clause 11 creates the concept of a restraining order in the Scottish criminal courts.
  To ensure that the work of the intelligence and security services is not compromised, clause 12 provides that the Secretary of State for the Home Department may certify, retrospectively, that a course of conduct carried out by a specified person on a specified occasion related to national security, the economic well-being of the United Kingdom, or the prevention or detection of serious crimes, and was done on behalf of the Crown.
  The Bill does not bind the Crown or, therefore, agents of the Crown, so the intelligence and security services—and other investigative agencies such as customs and benefit fraud investigators pursuing their responsibilities—are exempt from its provisions. The certification procedure is intended to ensure that that exemption can be proved in the situations described, quickly and effectively.

  The remaining clauses deal with the extent, commencement and short title of the Bill.
  Those, then, are the Government's proposals to deal with stalking. As I have said, their effects will go beyond what might be termed classic stalking to provide protection for others who are persecuted by anti-social behaviour. The proposals are part of the Government's aim to make the streets and communities of Britain safer.
  I am sorry that, despite all the fine words of the Opposition on this subject, the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) has tabled amendments that would significantly weaken the Bill and reduce the protection that it would afford the public, but perhaps he will in due course be able to dispel that impression, which is certainly the impression that we have formed of the amendments that have been tabled. As always, we look forward to hearing from him and from his colleagues.
  I commend the Bill to the House.
  5.24 pm
  Mr. Jack Straw: Like the Secretary of State for the Home Department, for whom Christmas has come about a week early, I begin with a tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Ms Anderson), who will be winding up for the Opposition on Second Reading. Concern about stalking, the absence of any criminal remedies and the inadequacy of civil remedies has been widely held for many years. There was a debate about that in 1994 during proceedings on the Criminal Justice and Public Order Bill, but it took the unusual determination and tenacity of my hon. Friend to translate that concern into a coherent Bill against stalking, which she introduced on 6 March.
  For reasons that I shall come to, Ministers decided to block my hon. Friend's Bill when it was due for its Second Reading on 10 May. Prompted, I believe, by public anger at their refusal to back that Bill, on 9 July, Ministers published a consultative paper, "Stalking—The Solutions" and finally this Bill on 5 December. When it passes through the other place and becomes law early next year, my hon. Friend can feel proud of her achievement in ensuring that, at long last, people who are subject to the pain and trauma of stalking have better protection from the law than they ever did before.
  We support the Bill, although we want it to be improved in Committee, and we have agreed with the Government to secure all its stages in the House today and tomorrow. Given that agreement, I was astonished—although perhaps I should never be surprised by words from the Secretary of State or his political adviser—by an accusation today in The Times and the Daily Mail that Labour was, in the Secretary of State's words, "reneging" on a promise to back the Government's anti-stalking Bill.
  The Secretary of State must know that that allegation is completely untrue. He knows, because he was involved in the discussions, that the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department said that the allegation was "nasty", not an adjective that I would use. Where both sides have agreed that there will be a certain amount of time taken to get through an agreed measure, it is unacceptable for one side then to complain when the other side seeks to ensure that those undertakings are carried through. Nothing that we have done in tabling amendments to the Bill in any sense undermines the spirit and letter of our agreement to ensure that the Bill secures all its stages in the House today and in the half day tomorrow.
  I understand from my hon. Friends that there have even been complaints that we have tabled amendments at all. That comes rich from a Government who have tabled five amendments to the Bill.
  Mr. George Howarth: To their own Bill.
  Mr. Straw: Indeed.
  The Secretary of State's complaint about the Bill of hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen was that it was too simplistic a solution I paraphrase to a very complicated matter. Of course we accept his injunction that it is better to have no Bill at all than a bad Bill. Given all the bad Bills that Labour Members have had to deal with week after week, I only wish that he had followed that injunction.
  788
  When my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen introduced her Bill in March, she gave some chilling case studies of women who had been stalked. In some cases, some sort of legal sanction had finally been imposed on the stalker. In most cases, however, the stalkers had managed to evade or avoid any sanction. My hon. Friend said:
  "Those who describe stalking as merely a nuisance should try speaking to a victim."
  She quoted with approval the view of the Police Federation that
  "it is frightening enough knowing that your every move is being watched, that you are being followed. But what if you are being trailed day after day, bombarded with unwanted letters, flowers and gifts, plagued with telephone calls and even go to collect your child from school to find a stranger has beaten you to it. It can ruin your life and"—
  said the Police Federation—
  "that is what is happening now to ordinary people, mainly women."—[Official Report, 6 March 1996; Vol. 273, c. 370.]
  Given that stalking can and has ruined the lives of many ordinary people for many years, the first question before the House is why existing law has proved so inadequate to counter the crime. One reason, I suggest, is that criminal law in England and Wales has developed to deal mainly with acute incidents of criminal behaviour—a murder, a robbery, a theft and so on—but it is far less developed in dealing adequately with behaviour such as stalking or serious neighbourhood disruption, which is continuous and where the whole is infinitely worse than the sum of the parts or any individual part.
  Individual acts of stalking such as those mentioned by the Police Federation—the odd letter of affection or the occasional bouquet of flowers—may be no more than eccentric, and should not bring down the force of the criminal or civil law. What causes the intense distress and so marks out stalking is the persistence and continuity of the conduct.
  A similar situation exists in relation to anti-social behaviour by neighbours. In a densely populated island like Britain, we must all accept that life in cities and towns will not always be peace and quiet. Most of us are willing to tolerate the occasional noisy disruption from neighbours; but when disruption becomes continuous and when those causing it ignore reasonable requests to desist and intimidate those who dare to complain, the effect, like that of stalking, shifts from being an occasional nuisance to a continuous nightmare
  In the past, such continuous, chronic criminal behaviour has generally been dealt with informally through community pressure, or perhaps by the informal intervention of the police, rather than through the formal involvement of the criminal law.
  When the criminal justice system has tried to deal with stalking or neighbour harassment, on the whole it has failed. That its because it has tended to chop up the continuous film of persistent misbehaviour into individual, discrete snapshots. Furthermore, as the Secretary of State mentioned, it has been required to prove intent. In other words, the criminal justice system has sought to turn a chronic condition into a series of acute ones.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen sought to fill the gap in respect of stalking with the Bill that she introduced in March. Her Bill prohibited

  789
  individuals from a "course of conduct" likely to cause a person to feel harassed, alarmed or distressed so as to fear for his or her safety, or that of a linked third person, such as a child. In our view, my hon. Friend's Bill got to the heart of the mischief of stalking. With just a modicum of good will from Ministers, drafting amendments could have been made to her Bill and it could have been on the statute book last summer. The necessary protection for victims of stalking could already have been law.
  That was not the first time that the Government had blocked action against stalking. In 1994 and again in 1995, Ministers dead-batted calls for stalking to be tackled, using as their reason the fact that they were conducting a study of anti-stalking laws and definitions in other countries. That was the essence of the answers given to my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) on 17 July 1995 and to my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich (Ms Jowell) on 6 February this year.
  That study into other countries seems to have led Ministers to a negative conclusion. Other countries with anti-stalking measures, such as Canada, New Zealand and Australia, have each, I understand, used fairly specific definitions. The Bill, however, provides a much looser, more general definition of harassment, with the intention that over time the courts will gradually fill in the gaps by helping to define the test of reasonable knowledge in clause 1(2) and the defence of reasonableness in subsection (3), and to develop the tort of harassment provided in clause 3.
  I understand the Government's intentions. Having myself, like the Secretary of State, been brought up in the English legal tradition, I have enormous respect for the intellectual ingenuity of the common law and for our courts' capacity to grow great oaks of jurisprudence from the smallest shoots. But a balance must be struck, especially in the criminal law, between an offence general enough to deal effectively with the mischief complained of, and an offence so vague that in practice courts will not convict.
  For that reason, we favour a belt-and-braces approach in the Bill, unless we are persuaded to the contrary by the wisdom of the Minister of State, Home Office, the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean). We do not seek to disturb the general definition in clause 1. However, without prejudice to the generality of that definition, which is important to our amendment, we believe that the Bill should give some detail of the circumstances in which stalking may arise. That is the purpose of our amendment, which can be considered in more detail in Committee on the Floor of the House later today.
  In May this year the Secretary of State wrote to me to explain why the Government would not support the Bill presented by my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen. The Minister of State wrote to my hon. Friend in the same terms. The objection then, which I ask my hon. Friends to note carefully, was that the scope of my hon. Friend's Bill was too wide. Today we hear that the objection to my hon. Friend's Bill was that the scope of her Bill was too narrow. I am confused, as is the Secretary of State, I think.
  The Secretary of State went on the record in The Times today with the churlish and nonsensical allegation that we would seek to block progress on what amounts to my hon. Friend's Bill. He said that our proposals
  790
  "would significantly reduce the public's protection from harassment."
  The Secretary of State owes it to the House to tell us, when he winds up the debate, which of his objections to my hon. Friend's Bill is correct. Was it his objection in May, when he said that her Bill was too wide, or is it his objection today, when he says that it was too narrow? The two statements cannot both be correct.
  Ministers claimed in the Daily Mail today that the Suzy Lamplugh Trust opposed the provisions that we put forward in one of the amendments.
  Mr. Howard: I should not want to put the hon. Gentleman to the inconvenience of waiting for the explanation that he seeks, so I am happy to give it to him now. Both criticisms are valid. The hon. Lady's Bill was too narrow for the reason that I advanced in my remarks earlier this afternoon: because the Bill provided a list, there was a danger that stalking would be interpreted exclusively by reference to that list. As I also explained, the hon. Lady's Bill was too wide because it covered activities of people such as journalists and political canvassers, who were not provided with the defence of acting reasonably in all the circumstances, which the Government's proposals provide. Those criticisms are valid, and I hope that that provides the hon. Gentleman with the explanation that he sought.
  Mr. Straw: Once before, I advised the Secretary of State that, when he is in a hole, he should stop digging. I repeat that advice. I have the letter sent to my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen by the Minister of State, Home Office. It does not mention the concern expressed by the Home Office back in May that the Bill was too narrow. The letter merely alleges that the Bill was too wide. That could have been dealt with satisfactorily if Ministers had tabled amendments to the Bill to provide more adequate defences.
  On the Secretary of State's second point—he made it today through his mouthpiece, the Daily Mail—our amendment, which incorporates the particulars contained in the Bill sponsored by my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen, does not affect the generality of the Secretary of State's proposals. That fact is stated in our amendment.
  I am sorry to disappoint the Secretary of State with the news that he and the Daily Mail were misinformed about the views of the Suzy Lamplugh Trust. Yesterday, the trust seemed to criticise Labour by stating:
  "Mr. Blair had got it wrong."
  I have a message from the Suzy Lamplugh trust, to my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen, which states:
  "I would like to apologise for problems caused as a result of the statement in the Daily Mail today from The Suzy Lamplugh Trust … At the time of speaking to the Daily Mail yesterday, I misunderstood the intention of the amendments within the Bill".
  I am not surprised that the person who wrote that misunderstood the amendments, as the amendments' details were explained to her by someone on the Daily Mail, which is not known as one of the primary organs of truth in our society.
  Mr. Howard: Have you cleared that with Blair?
  Mr. Straw: The one certainty—perhaps the only certainty—about the press at the next general election is

  791
  that the Daily Mail will not support the Labour party. Support from The Daily Telegraph is questionable, and it is certainly questionable from The Sun, The Times and the Daily Star. But I think that we can say with some certainty that the Daily Mail will support the Conservative party. Indeed, I would be profoundly shocked if that certainty in my life was not the case—[Interruption.] This is rebuttal.
  The message from the Suzy Lamplugh Trust continues:
  "The Trust is very pleased that Labour are still working to improve the Bill",
  and states that it supports the amendments tabled by the Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen.
  All the amendments tabled by the Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen aim to strengthen and improve the Bill. We want civil and criminal courts to be given powers to order offenders to undertake counselling, to make them confront their offending behaviour. That provision would be piloted before being introduced on a nationwide basis. We also believe that, in certain circumstances, better protection is necessary for stalking victims who are used as witnesses, and that civil courts' duties in relation to injunctions should be made clear in the Bill.
  As a common lawyer, I confess no detailed knowledge of Scots law—I profess virtually no knowledge, as it is drawn from a very different legal tradition. However, my hon. Friends representing seats north of the border have told me that reliance in Scotland on its—albeit different—breach of the peace provisions to control stalking is not satisfactory. That is why my hon. Friends desire the inclusion into Scots law of a separate, parallel statutory offence. I should make it clear that, with regret, we do not support the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett), because they would require proof of intent and subjective knowledge. As I have told him, we shall vote against his amendments if they are pushed to a Division.
  When the Bill was published, and again today, the Secretary of State claimed that it would also help to deal with the mounting problem of criminal anti-social behaviour by neighbours. Those of us who for years have been calling—although on deaf ears—for Government action against the growing problem of neighbourhood harassment should have uttered hallelujahs at the Government's change of tack, and reminded ourselves of the need to be charitable to sinners, such as the Secretary of State, who have repented. I should also mention the extent to which the Government have for so long denied that the issue presents any problem that makes any amendment to the law worthy, and the fact that, given the scale of the problems, the remedy offered by the Bill is entirely inadequate.
  In June 1995, after months of consultation with local authorities and others, on behalf of the Labour party I published a document entitled "A Quiet Life", which outlined detailed proposals to deal with problem of criminal anti-social neighbours. That document contained some alarming case histories and discussed the serious defects in current law. We proposed a new form of injunction to deal with the problem—a community safety order—which could be obtained by the police or by the local council, acting on behalf of victims. Thus, we proposed to mix the best of civil and of criminal law.
  792
  It would be a civil remedy, in the form of an injunction, which would be enforced by the criminal law if it were breached.
  The Government's reaction to our proposals at that stage was revealing. It revealed their profound complacency and the "not invented here" attitude which has cost them so dear in public support. Instead of the slightest acknowledgement that there was a problem that required a solution, there was contemptuous dismissal. When the draft proposals were published, in June 1995, the Prime Minister sought to dismiss them as
  "merely window dressing".—[Official Report, 22 June 1995; Vol. 262, c. 472.]
  In September 1996, the Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration described our proposals as "unnecessary", claiming that
  "measures already exist to deal with problems".
  I do not know of a single victim of serious harassment by bad neighbours in my constituency or in any constituency who believes that current law is adequate to deal with his or her problem. Those dismissals of our proposals were a grave error by Ministers, because they simply revealed one fact: Ministers planned to do nothing to deal with the problem. They planned to do nothing to help people whose lives were being ruined by anti-social behaviour, and nothing to assist local authorities which were struggling to use the wholly inadequate remedies in current law.
  As on the issues of knives, paedophiles and stalking, Ministers eventually woke up to the fact that the Opposition had identified a serious problem that required action. As is often the case, however, their remedies are too little, too late. Considered in conjunction with the provisions of the Housing Act 1996, their proposals fail in many key respects to measure up to the scale of the problem of criminal anti-social behaviour by bad neighbours.
  The powers in the 1996 Act apply only to tenants and not to all tenants in an area, whereas evidence shows that, in many areas, the anti-social behaviour of residents in owner-occupied housing can be just as damaging as the behaviour of those who are council, housing association or private tenants. The defective power to intervene given to local authorities under section 222 of the Local Government Act 1972—which has been highlighted by the problems that Coventry has had in the Finnie case—remains unamended.
  Even more importantly, civil remedies provided by this Bill are available only at the suit of the individual victim—which I think was the gravamen of the intervention by the right hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame A. Rumbold) on the speech of the Secretary of State. The Bill's provisions do not take proper account of the huge pressures that victims experience, and therefore of the need for police and councils to act together to secure community safety for the residents of a specific area. That is why our proposals do not place the duty on individual victims, who are often so intimidated that they are frightened—like many of my hon. Friends, I have witnessed the fear of constituents—that they will not make a complaint, and are even less willing to become the principal prosecution witness in a criminal prosecution.
  The Bill does not contain even the weaker provision—which the parallel provision in section 60 of the Family Law Act 1996 does—for court rules enabling third parties

  793
  to bring proceedings. I should tell the House that, had there been time—we accept that there is not—for the matter to be properly and fully examined in Standing Committee, we certainly would have moved detailed amendments to remedy the serious defects that we have found in that section of the Bill.
  In August 1996, the right hon. and learned Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor) said that the Government had "lost the plot" on law and order. The Government's indecision and uncertainty on stalking is just one illustration of why his damning conclusion about his Front-Bench colleagues was correct. First, they prevaricated for two years; then they blocked the Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen without adequate justification; then, as was no doubt his intention when he blocked the Bill in May, the Home Secretary went to his party conference not to thank my hon. Friend for bringing the matter into the public domain, but to proclaim the Bill on stalking as his invention. He said:
  "We need quick and effective remedies for the less serious cases, and tough sanctions for the most serious."
  He went on:
  "I can announce that we shall have them. Women deserve that protection; they need that protection; and I will make sure they get it."
  The implication was that the Government would sponsor the Bill. Unfortunately, the legislative programme announced in the Loyal Address did not bear the promise out. Instead, two days before the Queen's Speech, we were told—again by a newspaper, not by the Home Secretary—that the Bill would be left to the lottery of the private Member's Bill procedure. I then made the Home Secretary a clear and specific offer of co-operation on getting a Government Bill through the House. That offer was rejected.
  On the day of the Queen's Speech—I am glad to see that the Home Secretary is smiling about this—Ministers spent all day until 3.30 pm in radio and television studios, defending the decision to turn what would have been a Government Bill into a private Member's Bill. As we all remember, during his speech on the Loyal Address, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sedgemoor—[HON. MEMBERS: "Sedgefield."] My right hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) repeated the offer that I had made only two days before—an offer that had been rejected.
  We then witnessed the extraordinary spectacle of an impromptu meeting of the Cabinet's legislation Committee on the Treasury Bench.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Timothy Kirkhope): Decisive leadership.
  Mr. Straw: "Decisive leadership," says one of the devils on the Treasury Bench. The Prime Minister suddenly decided to overrule his Home Secretary again and make the Bill a Government Bill. By the end of the Prime Minister's speech on the Loyal Address, the Home Secretary's demeanour gave every indication that he had been subject to persistent and wanton harassment by his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and wished for legal protection from it.
  My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition told the House on 23 October that we would co-operate to get the measure on the statute book quickly. We are doing
  794
  that. The worst is that, if the Government had shown the House the same co-operation then as we are showing now, a comprehensive Bill against stalking could have been law six months ago. Who knows how many people could have been protected during that interval if the Government had done then what we are doing now?
  5.52 pm
  Mr. Peter Griffiths: I offer ungrudging support for the Bill, following what we have heard from the Opposition. I was under the impression that we were uniting in an effort to put on the statute book a measure that is required by the people of this country. The Government have responded to public opinion, and it would have improved the reputation of the House if all hon. Members had given the Bill the whole-hearted support that it deserves.
  I have some short points to make about the Bill. It is really two measures in one. First, it is a response to a number of highly publicised and serious offences of what has come to be called stalking. Secondly, our fellow citizens have a far wider need for protection from activities that are not necessarily of that type, but are straightforward harassment, when individuals or groups pick on others because of some perceived weakness, putting them in fear. We must stress the fact that the Bill will give an opportunity to deal with many incidents of harassment, as well as its primary aim of dealing with the dreadful cases of women being stalked.
  Men also require protection from harassment. On some occasions, men in the public eye, perhaps in the world of entertainment, need protection from neurotic women, who can be just as much of a nuisance to them and just as disruptive of their lives as some men can be to women.
  Some decades ago, the House took away the protection provided for those faced with harassment during industrial disputes when it abandoned the old concept of a criminal offence of watching and besetting. I recall that being taken from the statute book. I felt at the time that the offence should not have been removed. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has said, when people are watched, they are afraid, their lives are disrupted and they are unable to function normally in their ordinary family lives. I am pleased that the Bill will restore that concept. I trust that it will be used in the old-fashioned context. Those who do not want to take part in industrial disputes are as entitled to protection from harassment as are those who are the object of sexual admiration from unwanted sources.
  We may well find that the Bill will be particularly significant for younger persons. Violence among young people seems to be increasing. Those in vulnerable minorities are subject to continual, progressive harassment. One minority group—those who are seen as ethnically different from the majority group in the area—has already been mentioned, but those whose other activities may be regarded as different are also affected. Such people may simply attend the wrong school, or join the boy scouts, or they may simply be young people who behave themselves and do not wish to join gangs and other groups. I trust that the Bill will make it possible to deal with those above the age of criminal responsibility who are not yet adults. The Bill refers to "persons". That includes teenagers, who have just as much right to go about their business as do those over the age of 18.

  795
  While I support the Bill entirely, I have one other point to raise that may create a problem when the measure is enacted; many of those who carry out harassment are mentally disturbed. I have some doubts as to whether those who carry out repeated acts of harassment will be prevented from continuing by the taking out of a court order to desist. They will end up in prison. We already know that the key reason for many people being convicted and sent to prison is mental instability. Very little provision is made for them in prison to ensure that, when they leave the institution, they have been cured of the problem that took them there.
  I was interested to hear the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) talk about the need for counselling. We must go beyond that. We need an educative process for those subject to an injunction and, perhaps, for those in prison. The matter will not be solved simply by issuing an order and sending the offender to gaol for a period.
  The Bill deserves the House's whole-hearted support. I trust that we shall achieve unanimity in Committee and that it will quickly reach the statute book to provide protection for our constituents who suffer from harassment.
  5.59 pm
  Mr. Bruce George: The hon. Member for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Griffiths) gave his ungrudging support to the Bill, but half his speech was mild criticism. I give my ungrudging support and do not feel guilty about offering some suggestions. There is remarkable unanimity and homogeneity in a parliamentary assembly that is not noted for taking such an approach. Opposition Members do not have to sacrifice their critical faculties to avoid being accused of not favouring the Bill.
  I very much welcome the Bill and the Home Secretary's introductory remarks, which explained not only that it will apply to stalked women and men but that it has a racial dimension and that it can be used to deal with obstreperous neighbours. All hon. Members know from their surgeries of people who have been stalked, if that is the right word, by next-door neighbours who apply exceptional pressure to them. I also welcome the Home Secretary's remarks about the application of the legislation to group harassment; cases need not involve only one person doing the harassing.
  I am delighted that, at long last, this measure is about to reach the statute book. It does not imply hostility to say that we must be careful because experience shows that we are not always brilliant legislators. For various reasons, political and otherwise, there is an element of haste in what we are doing. I hope that the Minister and my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) will say that, if parts of the legislation prove to be inappropriate, there will be opportunities to revisit the matter. If we pass legislation swiftly, it is incumbent on us to remedy, where feasible, any glaring weaknesses that, in legislating speedily, we have overlooked. I suspect that Members of the other place will earn their per diem allowances by using their expertise in scrutinising the Bill to supplement our expertise.
  Stalking has increased in recent years. A growing number of women, and some men, are subject to varying degrees of harassment from individuals who pursue them.
  796
  That involves not only television and film celebrities but ordinary members of the public. The excellent briefing produced by the Library describes the remedies, but it is obvious from recent well-publicised cases that both the criminal and civil law are inadequate. People rightly expect us to legislate to protect victims of what is, regrettably, a growing menace.
  Last year, I attended a conference in the United States that had a session devoted to stalking. It was organised by the American Society for Industrial Security, the largest professional association of people involved in investigation and security. As one would expect, much research is being done in the United States. It is important not only that we should consider legislation in other countries but that we consider research elsewhere into the phenomenon of stalking.
  Among the papers presented at the conference were useful documents on what is being done in the United States, especially in the Los Angeles police department. The LAPD has not been above criticism of late, but it seems to be a leader in this field. It set up a threat management unit 1990 to investigate in the long term the normal patterns of threat. It has offered considerable advice to officers on how to deal with stalking.
  The research suggests that, unless one appreciates the different sorts of stalking, one will not necessarily use the right methods to tackle it: it goes into detail about erotomanic, love obsessional, and simple obsessional cases. It is important for the police to know how to deal with harassment, not simply from the perspective of dealing with the perpetrator but from that of dealing sensitively with people who are being harassed, or who allege that they are being harassed. Such people require much information and support to help them to deal with what can be a horrifying experience.
  Several strategies have been devised for police and victims to pursue, to try to prevent stalkers from continuing to stalk. With measures such as this, there is a danger that there will be a spate of complaints, many of which will be valid and require the assistance of psychiatrists, the police and the courts. However, there will be some cases where people do not understand the legislation, refuse to understand it, or try to take advantage of it. They could place enormous pressure on the police and the courts to deal with cases that should never have got near the courts, which could become clogged up. There is potential for people to use the new legislation wrongly. That is why it is important that the police should know how to deal with different sorts and levels of complaints or incidents.
  The LAPD's idea is to educate victims about stalking and its wider dimension so that they can be apprised realistically of what the police and the authorities can do. It is right to advise victims of stalking about means of modifying their behaviour and patterns of movement, if necessary, to minimise risk, such as changing telephone numbers or moving, although the latter is a sign of failure. Therapeutic strategies can be devised to help victims deal better with the phenomenon.
  It is also important—some people may think that it is not the purpose of legislation, but I believe that it should be—to consider how the police should deal with alleged perpetrators. There are a variety of ways. Often in the United States, private investigators are involved. Much more must be done than confronting stalkers with a knee

  797
  in the groin and the threat of further physical retribution. Los Angeles police say that they can write to or telephone alleged stalkers and apply for temporary restraining orders preventing them from making contact with victims. They can use arrest and detention or what they call mental health diversion. Finally, they can seek criminal conviction. Their approach has reduced the number of allegations of stalking to more manageable proportions, to advantage.
  I suspect, and fervently hope, that the Home Secretary and the Minister will be able to tell us about research being conducted by the police and by the excellent research department in the Home Office, and about funding for academic research into the phenomenon of stalking. Unless we can comprehend the phenomenon, legislation will miss the mark and we will not achieve our objectives. It can be dramatically demonstrated that an aggressive intervention posture by the police can be effective, and I hope that the police are pursuing the matter.
  I am not declaring an interest, but the Minister and I have long had an interest in the regulation of the private security industry—that has been a totally abortive venture for the past 17 years, but there is still hope—and one element that requires regulation is the profession of private investigators. The profession is used by a wide variety of individuals and organisations and, at the respectable end, is pursued by many people, mostly ex-CID, with diligence and competence.
  Private investigation may not be the nicest profession but, like politics, it is necessary. At the bad end there are crooks, or men who have become crooked, deploying tactics that are clearly reprehensible and illegal. I have had discussions with the representative organisations and I have had a partial assurance from the Home Secretary. Although there are certain defences open to investigators, if they fail in the task of surveillance and are spotted, either they are poor investigators or the subject has been clever or lucky enough to spot them.
  I seek assurances from the Minister, either in his speech or in response to amendments, that the legislation will not be applied to those at the legitimate end of the private investigation profession. There are, quite rightly, protections for the intelligence services and the police and for reputable investigators who might be employed by a myriad Government Departments.
  In some cases there will be levels of harassment far in excess of the instructions given to investigators. Those who are the subject of scrutiny may not endorse what I say. I am sure that there will be a tiny minority of cases of over-vigilant investigators and I hope that the protection will not provide a defence for someone who is clearly guilty.
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Maclean): The hon. Gentleman is in slight danger of misleading himself, and I think that I can help him. The Secretary of State's certificate is available to agents of the Crown; it would not be available to cover private investigators. In addition, there is a defence for people acting in the course of a legitimate trade or profession, provided that they act reasonably; if they act, as the hon. Gentleman said, far in excess of what is necessary, they will be caught by the Bill.
  Mr. George rose—
  Mr. Rupert Allason: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the principle of clandestine surveillance is that it should not be detected by the subject? There is a requirement in the Bill that there have to have been at least two prior incidents. He and I share a concern with the private security industry, but does he accept that it would be an extremely inept investigator who became subject to the Bill or that, alternatively, there would have to have been a deliberate use of obvious surveillance as a form of harassment?
  Mr. George: I am grateful for both those interventions. The Minister reminded me of something of which I was already aware. I am sorry if he gained the impression that I was not. I know full well that the certificate is available to employees of the Crown.
  Not all the work of investigators involves wearing a dirty mac and using binoculars, videos or cameras; they pursue many open activities that do not rely on furtive or clandestine behaviour. I recently read an article dividing the investigation profession into 28 different sectors.
  I know of several cases, also, in which filming has been done with the acquiescence of the person under surveillance. There was a case involving Manchester council two or three years ago, when it hired an investigator to follow a guy who had put in a claim for £100,000 compensation for an injury: the investigator went on a holiday tour with him and filmed him on a daily basis. One could say that that was not clandestine.
  The Bill contains some imprecise references to reasonableness or the pursuit of crime, but perhaps a little more clarity would give greater reassurance to those who are pursuing investigations in a legitimate fashion. It is obvious that some activities of investigators are legal and that occasionally some investigators behave in a way that is absolutely illegal, but the problem is that there is a grey area in the middle that may not be accounted for in the Bill.
  A great deal of investigators' work relates to non-criminal activities. A political party, for example, could employ investigators to check on the validity of prospective parliamentary candidates before endorsement. The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department is looking at me with incredulity. Perhaps we could have a chat afterwards, because I think that he has not quite got it right.
  Investigators can pursue a variety of activities that are not related to criminal behaviour: the eviction of anti-social neighbours, for example. Local authorities are increasingly looking to private investigators to become professional witnesses and gather evidence to secure an eviction. To do that would require the investigator to keep the neighbours under surveillance, take their photograph and film and follow them. The ultimate aim is not a criminal prosecution but an eviction. If neighbours who were being investigated discovered the fact, they might be able to rush to the courts to seek protection.
  I have mentioned the vetting of potential and existing staff. Other investigations that do not lead to criminal prosecutions can involve matrimonial matters, intellectual property, missing persons, debt recovery and many other issues. Sometimes, investigations are part of civil proceedings, but they often do not even lead to that. I therefore ask the Minister at some stage to comment with greater clarity on why he thinks that the Bill as it stands would adequately protect a professionally qualified person in going about his or her professional duties.

  799
  The Bill is overdue. I am glad that there is not much acrimony over it, apart from some ritualistic criticisms. It is clearly very important that the Bill is passed and that what we pass achieves our objectives. I only hope that, if deficiencies are discovered after Royal Assent, the Government and the Opposition—whoever they may be—will have the good grace to recognise that mistakes have been made and try to remedy them.
  6.20 pm
  Sir Ivan Lawrence: If any justification were needed for the argument that we should think before we leap into making legislation, the Bill supplies it. The Stalking Bill, presented by the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Ms Anderson), which undoubtedly helped to concentrate the Government's minds on the need for a law against stalking—she should be commended for her efforts—was certainly an important step in the right direction. I was happy to encourage her in introducing that Bill, which she has acknowledged and will probably do so again—although whether she does so to embarrass me or not, I do not yet know.
  The hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen would not and certainly should not pretend that her Bill is better than the Protection from Harassment Bill. Although, as has already been said, the words of the director of the National Anti-Stalking and Harassment Campaign, Dr. von Heussen-Countryman, to the effect that a bad Bill is worse than no Bill, might have been a somewhat harsh criticism of the Stalking Bill, there can be no doubt that, taking the two Bills side by side, the Bill before us today is an improvement.
  I do not think that it was reasonable—it may of course have just been party political posturing—for the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) to complain about the Government's Bill in the terms that he did. It is even less reasonable for him to complain and then support the Bill in the Lobby, as I understand he is going to do. One example of the total unreasonableness, indeed, absurdity, of his comments was to say that the Government were confused in their criticism of the Stalking Bill in saying one moment that it was too wide and in another that it was too narrow. If one has a bird brain, one might think that there is some merit in such a comment, yet it is total nonsense.
  As my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary made clear when he helpfully came to the Dispatch Box to stop any more nonsense being perpetrated, when he said that the Stalking Bill was too wide, it was because it would have caught people such as journalists, and when he later said that it was too narrow, he was commenting in a completely different sense. It became obvious as the Bill formulated in the Government's minds that it could be used for wider purposes than dealing just with stalkers. I cannot honestly believe that the hon. Member for Blackburn is so obtuse that he did not realise the distinction. He was just doing what he is now getting used to as we approach the general election: causing mischief.
  The letter that my right hon. Friend the Minister wrote in May, to which the hon. Member for Blackburn referred, was obviously written before the Government issued their
  800
  consultation paper, received their many responses, thought further about the matter and realised that the Bill could be broadened. What on earth is wrong with that? It is time that the Opposition stopped grubbing around to draw distinctions between Labour and Conservative. Either they support our policy, which would be novel, or they oppose it. They must make up their minds and stop standing on their heads and pretending that there is some great distinction between themselves and the Government if they are to help us to introduce sensible legislation.
  The Bill is better than the Stalking Bill for a number of obvious reasons. It covers a wider number of offences: not only stalking, but bad neighbours and racial harassment. It is better because it is more precise about the offences, separating harassment from violence and the consequences of the two, which are widely different. It is better because it is more precise about the defences—which is very important—including legitimate surveillance, which the hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) mentioned. The Bill is better and will therefore lead to less confusion in the courts.
  There is no doubt that the obnoxious activity of stalking needed to be dealt with. More and more terrifying instances were coming to light and being publicised in the newspapers, and it was becoming more and more obvious that the existing law was thoroughly inadequate to deal with them. People have been followed for months and months by harassers, and instances of endless telephone calls at all times of the day and night, causing immense misery, have arisen. Misery was being caused by stalkers with whom the women involved had never had a relationship. The misery of parents worried about paedophiles stalking school playgrounds, and the courts being seemingly incapable of dealing with it, was beginning to emerge, too.
  The Government did not just produce a Bill; they considered the Stalking Bill and earlier debates on stalking, they thought about the problem, produced a consultation paper, listened to the representations made to them, and improved on their first thoughts, which should be welcomed, not scorned, by the Labour party.
  What needed to be done to protect women—as my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Griffiths) pointed out, the issue does not exclusively affect women—from stalkers? We needed the threat of criminal proceedings in order to deter would-be offenders, and if they were not deterred, we needed to protect the victims by imprisoning stalkers if they were caught and convicted. We clearly needed such a law. We needed a different approach to the different kinds of stalking; we needed to distinguish between those who are just a nuisance, which is bad enough, and those who threaten violence and cause fear. We needed to recognise that some offenders act deliberately, believing that they are causing misery and knowing the effect of it, and some are sick and demented and honestly do not intend to cause misery. If the latter type of offender nevertheless causes misery by their actions, they cannot be caught, convicted and sentenced under the existing legislation.
  There was a need not just to punish offenders but to prevent them offending in the first place. There was a need therefore not just for a criminal offence but a civil wrong, which can offer an injunction. If such an injunction is breached, it can be followed up by criminal sanctions. There was a need for defences to protect journalists. Some of us would wish that all journalists

  801
  were not protected under the Bill, but journalists have a job to do, and as long as they do it in the confines of decency and restraint, they should be allowed to do so. If the Bill were too widely drafted, they would fall foul of it.
  What about political canvassers? We call time and again at people's doors. First they are out; the second time they do not want to talk to us; the third time we do not have the answers to their questions; if they still want to talk to us the fourth time that we call, it is probably because we have those answers. We may even return a fifth or a sixth time to get some money from them. That might be considered harassment in some circumstances.
  A harassment Bill must ensure that such nonsense does not take place—that is, not the nonsense of political canvassing, but the nonsense of prosecutions for political canvassing. There are also debt collectors, and the people who have already been mentioned, who are engaged in genuine surveillance. All those needs and approaches have helped to form the Bill, and that is thoroughly to he welcomed.
  An undoubted improvement is the widening of the concept of stalking to cover harassment by neighbours, and racial harassment. Problems concerning bad neighbours are mentioned more often at my weekly surgeries now. In the old days we heard complaints about the inadequacy of social welfare and benefits, but the Government have been generous and such complaints have tailed off. More and more of the complaints that I hear from my constituents are about their bad neighbours.
  We write to the local authority, but the authority says that it has no powers to do anything about bad neighbours. The Government have already passed a law to define some kinds of noise as a nuisance, but that is not always adequate, because the harassment does not always take the form of noise. Now we are introducing a measure that will give local authorities that run council housing estates another series of weapons to threaten those appalling people who make their neighbours' lives impossible.
  Mr. McNamara: The hon. Gentleman talks about all the extra powers for local authorities, but local authorities will not get the extra money that they need to use those powers to enforce the legislation, or to employ the necessary people.
  Sir Ivan Lawrence: That, as the hon. Gentleman must be aware, is totally irrelevant to the point that I am making. Perhaps he can raise it on the Adjournment of the House. He certainly may not raise it further in the middle of my speech.
  I especially welcome the Government's move to deal further with the scourge of racism. The 1994 report by the Select Committee on Home Affairs made 38 recommendations for dealing with that serious problem, and I remember taking action against my own Government for not going far enough in accepting those recommendations, and for not proposing to deal more strongly with racism in response to our report.
  Our recommendation 29 reads as follows:
  "We recommend that the Public Order Act 1986 should be amended so that (a) section 6(4) should no longer require the prosecution to prove that the offender either intended to cause harassment or was aware that harassment may result, but instead should require the prosecution to prove that a reasonable person
  802
  would have expected harassment, alarm or distress to be caused by his actions, (b) section 5(4) should allow a police officer to arrest on the basis of reasonable suspicion that an offence had been or was about to be committed, and (c) in section 5(6) the penalty should be increased to include a sentence of up to 12 months imprisonment, a more substantial fine, or both. We consider that these amendments will allow the courts to take into consideration and deal more effectively with those expressions of racism accompanying criminal acts to which we refer in paragraph 86."
  I hope that I do my right hon. Friend the Minister of State no injustice, but I seem to remember that at the time he said that it was not possible to go further along the lines of the Committee's recommendations. I now warmly commend him and thank him for moving considerably further along those lines in the Bill, which, by extending the concept of stalking, deals with racial harassment. As a result there will be more weapons in the armoury of the criminal justice system for dealing with something that, when we seek to live together in a decent society, is one of the most insidious and hateful forms of human behaviour.
  It is not only the victims of stalkers who have reason to thank the Government for the Bill. Harassed neighbours, whose numbers must run into thousands, if my constituency is anything to go by, and the racially harassed, of whom there must also be thousands, have reason to thank them too. So do all those who seek to bring order and justice to our society—whether that means the police, the probation service, the magistrates or the judges—and therefore the British public, who yearn for a society in which there is more law and order. I commend the Government for bringing forward a Bill that fulfils those wishes.
  6.35 pm
  Mrs. Diana Maddock: Although the Bill is generally perceived to be about stalking, its tentacles are likely to spread far wider. In some ways it is like four Bills rolled into one—an anti-stalking Bill, a feuding neighbours Bill, a domestic violence Bill and a Bill that extends civil injunction remedies in such cases to the criminal courts.
  It is therefore all the more disappointing and worrying that the timetable means that the Bill will be taken through all its stages in little more than 24 hours, on two consecutive days. My hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) has already made his views clear on that subject. Shortly before coming into the Chamber, I discovered that the Government may even be minded to push the whole thing through in one day.
  During the debate on the Queen's Speech when my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) pledged to the Prime Minister my party's co-operation in the passage of the Bill, we did not envisage such a compacted and rushed debate. In my view, an attempt has been made to take advantage of our good will and concern.
  We have heard that line already this afternoon. People have said that Opposition Members are against the Bill and are not co-operating, but "co-operating" does not mean failing to scrutinise the legislation properly.
  Mr. Maclean: The hon. Lady says that there is a tight timetable for pushing the Bill through, but she should revise her opinion. As I understand it, two days have been allocated for debate, should that be necessary, although

  803
  I hope that we shall not need the full time. I should have thought that that was ample time in which to scrutinise the legislation properly.
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. Gary Streeter): We can go through the night if the hon. Lady likes.
  Mrs. Maddock: I hear facetious comments about sitting through the night. That is not what I meant. I believe that dealing with the Bill in such a short time will prevent all but the most rushed consultation. Drafting changes between Second Reading and Committee, and between Committee and Report, are part and parcel of the passage of most Bills through the House, and we all believe that they are the better for it. Clearly that will not happen in this case.
  We would like several improvements to be made to the Bill. I have tabled amendments accordingly, and I hope that the Minister will respond sympathetically to them when the time comes. I am a little disappointed that an amendment that I tabled to allow a breach of a civil undertaking to be treated as an offence has not been selected. I believe that such a provision could save lengthy and complex legal arguments, and could take some of the acrimony out of cases, especially domestic violence cases.
  I am advised that such a use of undertakings with legal force behind them could be extended to the criminal courts, too. In view of what the Minister has already said, I hope that he and his civil servants will consider the scope for the use of undertakings in both civil and criminal courts in the context of the Bill. I hope that we shall hear some response to that suggestion during our proceedings tonight.
  I now move to a second area where we on the Liberal Democrat Benches are looking for some improvement. [HON. MEMBERS: "We?"] There are 26 of us somewhere in the building. As the Bill is drafted, the court cannot give any protection to victims pending the trial—which may be months away—short of remanding someone in custody, which would be expensive, or making it a bail condition, which does not carry the same full protection as the restraining order provisions in clause 5 from the time of sentencing onwards.
  I hope that the Minister will consider whether it is possible to enable the court to make such an order when a trial is pending. One possible use of such an order would be to enable the court to make an order while proceedings are adjourned indefinitely, with the prospect perhaps of the defendant never having to come to court. The victim, therefore, would never have to relive the ordeal in the witness box. That would give the substantial protection of an explicit order, backed up with five years' imprisonment.
  Given the wide scope of the Bill, I was surprised to read that the Government expect approximately 200 additional criminal cases a year to arise from it. Do the Government really believe that only four additional cases a week will arise in the whole of England and Wales as a result of the Bill? I can only imagine that they are considering only stalking cases and ignoring the wider effects of the Bill, which have been described fairly graphically this evening.
  I have been advised by a lawyer active in this field that once the extent of the Bill is known there will be immense pressure on the police to take up the proceedings,
  804
  particularly in neighbour disputes and domestic violence cases. In addition, the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) highlighted how important the Bill will be in cases of racial harassment. Only this week, the local beat officer in the centre of Christchurch—who often calls in at my office—said that she knew of two people in the constituency who were suffering a certain amount of harassment and who could be helped if the Bill were on the statute book. That is just one small part of England, so I suggest that the Government have underestimated when they state that there will be only 200 additional cases.
  Stalking is a very serious matter, but it has only recently attracted media attention. It is a shame that, before anything can be deemed to be important, it has to become a media sensation. Many people still have the impression that stalking is little more than a nuisance and affects only celebrities who have in some way forfeited their right to privacy. The truth is much more complex. More than 3,000 people—young and old, men and women, those who are well known and those who are not—have been the victims of stalkers across the country in recent years. The true total figure is almost certainly higher. Stalking is not yet a crime, so the police have no criminal records on the matter.
  Three months ago, there was a particularly appalling stalking case in the newspapers when a 37-year-old man—technically on a charge of causing grievous bodily harm, as that is the route that the police have often tried to use—was controversially acquitted by a court in London. The court had been told that he had harassed his victim for four years. He telephoned her up to 10 times a day, registered his car in her name and lurked outside her house—once with a machete. The man offered no defence, but the judge acquitted him because in his view there was insufficient evidence to prove intent to cause psychological harm, which was what the case turned on.
  To get a criminal conviction at the moment, one must prove psychological distress equivalent to grievous bodily harm. Although this was achieved in one recent case—by Tracey Sant from Portsmouth—it has proved to be very difficult. I suspect that there was success in Portsmouth because of the assiduous work of the police there, and police officers from Portsmouth were the first to lobby me on this issue. They were incredibly frustrated at their inability to deal effectively with bad cases of stalking and harassment in the area.
  Speaking last September at the Liberal Democrat annual conference in Brighton, I advocated a two-track approach to tackling the menace of stalking. This comprised a civil offence, allowing the courts to use restraining orders and award compensation, and a more serious criminal offence of molestation, where the stalker's persistent conduct causes harassment, alarm or distress, or leaves the person in fear of violence. I am pleased that the Bill broadly fits that description.
  The need for legislation of this kind has been highlighted by groups including the Suzy Lamplugh Trust and the National Anti-Stalking and Harassment Campaign, both of which deserve credit for the fact that there is a Bill before us. The hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Ms Anderson) also deserves credit for pushing the matter further, and I was disappointed that the Government stated in the summer that it would have been too complicated to amend her Stalking Bill. I believe that

  805
  if the political will had been there, a Bill could have been on the statute book by now. The Police Federation has for a long time recognised the need for a Bill of this kind.
  The Bill is long overdue. We support it, but that does not mean that we should not look closely at the legislation that we pass in Parliament. I cannot emphasise that enough. In my view, the Government have taken advantage of the good will of other parties and are rushing the Bill through the House. This could have been a good example of parties working together constructively, but I believe that the Government are yet again using it in a party political way before they look at the wider public interest.
  The challenge for us all has been to achieve a balance between safeguarding civil liberties and producing effective legislation to deal with stalking and harassment. By rushing this Bill through, there is a real danger that we shall not achieve that balance in the best way that we could. I hope that the Government will honestly listen to the concerns raised in what has been a truncated debate.
  6.47 pm
  Mr. Rupert Allason: There is no doubt that there is a gap in the law, and every hon. Member will be aware of complaints from constituents suffering from anti-social neighbours. I know of an individual in my constituency—I will call him Brian—who has made life intolerable for his next-door neighbour, a widow living alone and in a permanent state of terror. My concern is that the Bill is not exactly the answer to a maiden's prayer.
  The widow has been advised that her neighbour cannot be prosecuted until he commits some kind of physical offence against her. That is of little comfort. The gentleman clearly has a mental problem and is well known to the psychiatric services in my constituency. He is unaware of the problems that he is creating, so this, may be unconscious or passive harassment. Indeed, the lady concerned is sympathetic to his plight.
  As I understand it, the Bill will provide both a criminal and a civil sanction in such cases. But what will actually happen? Will it result in the man going to prison? I am not sure that that will be the solution to his difficulties at all. While I welcome the principle of a sanction against harassment, I am concerned that it will not necessarily provide all the remedies needed by people of the kind I have described. I am not sure that the Bill will automatically be a remedy for anti-social neighbours.
  My second point relates to the definition of conduct that is reasonable. Will journalists really be exempt? Was it reasonable for journalists to go to parents of victims of the Dunblane incident and persistently approach them for interviews? Under the Bill, two incidents will be sufficient to spark off a prosecution, or at least police activity, and I am concerned about precisely whose definition of "reasonable" will apply. I suggest that what journalists from the Daily Mirror or the other tabloids consider to be reasonable is not what other people consider to be reasonable. I ask the Minister whether there is any way to narrow the definition.
  With regard to targeting, will the Bill cover a specific victim who is anxious about approaches from or stalking by an identified person, or will it apply to entire communities? What happens in, let us say, a close? No doubt right hon. and hon. Members all know of cases in
  806
  which a family with social difficulties or other problems have been moved into an otherwise peaceful neighbourhood and their behaviour—passive though it may be—causes enormous offence to other people living in the vicinity. I am not convinced that a criminal sanction will be the solution in such cases, and I should be grateful if my hon. Friend the Minister could clarify that point.
  The Bill will be used very widely indeed. I do not often agree with the Liberal Democrats, but when the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mrs. Maddock) said that there was some doubt about whether there would be just 200 cases a year, I was inclined to agree. Many people will look to the Bill to meet their particular anxiety and provide a remedy for it. I suspect that that will go way beyond celebrities or vulnerable women being stalked, and it will certainly go way beyond the problem of anti-social neighbours. A large number of sharp lawyers will see considerable opportunities in the Bill. If the courts are to look to Hansard to discover what definitions and cases are described, it is important that the Minister should try to give clear examples of cases for which a remedy will be available under the Bill.
  Having said all that, I have clear reservations and I am not convinced that a penal sanction will automatically be the solution to anti-social behaviour. Nevertheless, the widow in my constituency to whom I have referred will certainly sleep much more easily when the Bill reaches the statute book and she knows that there is at least an element of protection for her. It is to be hoped that the Bill will also have a deterrent effect—that the mere threat of an injunction, or a visit from the police threatening a legal case, will be sufficient to curtail the misconduct.
  To conclude, I wish the Bill a fair wind, but I hope that the Minister will be as graphic as possible in drawing the courts' attention to the kind of cases that will be covered.
  6.53 pm
  Mr. Kevin McNamara: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Ms Anderson) on having forced the Government to bring the Bill before the House. Having congratulated her on that, I have to say that this Bill is not the Bill that my hon. Friend originally introduced, nor is it the Bill that many of us thought we would support.
  The Bill is widely drawn and I, for one, would have preferred to have it deal with offences of racial harassment, sexual harassment and anti-social behaviour that were specific, direct and defined, rather than have them as they are. Praise is due for their being in Bill, but the terms are extremely nebulous. The powers in the Bill will depend on, as my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) said, organic growth in the common law. Nothing frightens me more than that, having seen how some judges interpret current law. They might narrowly construe some of the provisions in a manner that might not have been intended by Parliament.
  Furthermore, like the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason), I am concerned that clever lawyers might seek to extend the scope of the Bill so that it involves matters such as trade disputes, as was hinted at by the hon. Member for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Griffiths), and the role of investigative journalists. What is reasonable to one judge in the pursuance of a specific case might not be reasonable in respect of journalism. We are not talking only about invasions of the privacy of distinguished

  807
  ex-members of the royal family or pop stars but about serious journalists carrying out serious research. The defence that is allowed depends on the subjective judgment of the individual judge who is directing the jury in a specific case. That causes me great concern.
  I turn now to the Bill, specifically clause 4, and to why the Bill was originally introduced. I shall refer to a case in my constituency which was known as the "Orchard Park seige". Briefly, the facts of the case are as follows. A woman in my constituency had an affair that she brought to an end. Not satisfied with that, the man involved criminally assaulted her, bound her and left her in a ditch, for which he was sent to prison. He served a short time, got parole and was released; he then started to pester the woman. She complained to the police, who, she believes, did nothing about it, even though the man was out on licence and he was alleged to have boasted in a local pub about what he intended to do to the woman. She also believes that the police knew that he had what turned out to be an imitation firearm. Some of these matters are the subject of a Police Complaints Authority inquiry, but this is what the woman feels happened.
  Eventually, the woman was seized outside her home and bundled into it. Her daughter arrived some time later and was also seized. The man appeared to fire his gun. He viciously assaulted the woman, broke her sternum and raped her about a dozen times. After 14 days, the police successfully ended the seige. I have nothing but praise for the way in which the police handled a difficult situation. They believed that the man was armed and they knew that he had hostages whom he might kill.
  The jury in the subsequent trial acquitted the man of rape. It is hard to imagine how the woman could have acquiesced in sexual intercourse in her physical condition at that time, having, as she did, a broken breastbone. The police in that case regarded the jury's verdict as perverse.
  One of the problems in the case was the fact that some of the rapes took place when the daughter was in the room although she was told to turn her face away. She was petrified about giving evidence; nothing that the police could say would persuade her to change her mind. Throughout the period after the arrest, a policewoman lived with mother and daughter, looking after them, giving them every encouragement. Nevertheless, the daughter refused to give evidence. I believe that to be one reason why the man was acquitted of rape. He was given about 10 years for criminal assault. Had the Bill been law at that time, the police might have been able to halt that tragic series of events. I say only "might", because many aspects of that case remain to be examined.
  What priority will the police give to cases of harassment? What judgment will they exercise? Where will harassment appear in their hierarchy of offences—above or below burglary, above or below actual physical assault? What is their subjective judgment of the complaint made to them? The subjectivity will create a variety of problems.
  Another type of harassment arose in that case. The woman gave evidence for two days, separated by a screen from the accused, but in the public gallery were all the members of the accused's family, looking down at her
  808
  with hatred in their eyes. What sort of intimidation was that? It is an interesting question. If it went on for several days, would it amount to intimidation—harassment—under the Act, even if it took place in a court of law, where people were entitled to be? The woman certainly felt that their presence, looking at her in that way, hampered her in giving evidence, and her daughter felt that their presence intimidated her and prevented her from giving evidence.
  Although the Crown Prosecution Service brought several charges of rape against the man, it did not bring them all; despite the perverse verdict, the CPS decided not to bring up the other cases. That woman had a horrific experience as a result of stalking and continued to feel deep resentment that she had been so abused, yet the man who did all that to her was not convicted of the violation of her womanhood, as he should have been.
  Questions arise about matters that are not within the ambit of the Bill but arise from it. What should be the role of the social services in such a case? The woman was living in a council house. When the man was released on licence, she visited the local housing authority and asked to be transferred. She gave the reasons but did not go into all the details. Her request was therefore refused.
  By chance, however, the man had been allocated a flat that directly overlooked the house in which the woman lived. She was conscious of him always being there, overlooking where she lived, and she was conscious of his actions. The local housing authority felt that it could not move him, because it was unaware of his record, and it did not feel that the woman had sufficient grounds to be moved, because, rightly or wrongly, she felt that she could not give all the details of what had happened to her. There is a need, therefore, for housing associations, local authorities and the social services to take into account the effects of harassment on people in vulnerable situations, especially women.
  My constituent asked me to make those points in the debate because of her concern, not only about what had happened to her but about what might happen to other women in other circumstances. I welcome the Bill in so far as it fulfils the purpose of the Stalking Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen, but not in so far as it poses enormously extended threats to civil liberties as a result of what the Government have done with it.
  We welcome the aspects of the Bill designed to try to overcome a serious and grievous matter affecting many women in this country—and also, strangely enough, men. As the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mrs. Maddock) said, stalking is a frequent problem. I hope that the knowledge that the Bill exists and that the powers exist under the Bill will encourage women to complain to the police. Let us hope that the police devote sufficient priority to the matter to take action on such cases, because failure to do so affects the well-being not only of the woman but of her family, her extended family and the whole community.
  7.6 pm
  Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Legislation that is rushed through the House tends to be bad legislation. On this occasion, there was no need for a rush, but we have a Home Secretary who always seeks party advantage in preference to good government.

  809
  When my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Ms Anderson) introduced her Stalking Bill, the Government would have had no difficulty in ensuring that it became a good Bill and passed through the House; but no—the Government preferred to block it and claim that they were doing something different.
  That is the Bill's tragedy. By the time my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen had introduced her Bill, it was obvious that stalking had become a problem and needed to be tackled. When a private Member introduces a Bill, it receives a Second Reading and goes into Committee. Then discussions take place between the promoter and the Government. Almost every clause of the original Bill is dropped, a series of new clauses appears and the Bill emerges from Committee, improved yet managing to fulfil the promoter's original intention.
  If such proper scrutiny had taken place, we would now have a useful measure on the statute book. Sadly, the Home Secretary did not want the chance of a Labour Member being responsible for passing legislation on stalking; he wanted to claim the credit. He produced a discussion document. There was a lengthy charade about whether the Government would promote legislation. Finally, we got the Bill. We have 10 days in which to examine it.
  I do not complain that hon. Members have only 10 days in which to examine the Bill, but I do complain that people outside this place have little time in which to do so. It is surprising how difficult it is to get hold of a Bill like this, to study it, to work out whether it will meet one's circumstances and to lobby Members of Parliament to ensure that it does the task.
  Holding Report stage immediately after Committee stage does not provide enough time—not because, in Committee, Members often do a great deal to improve the Bill, but because often the amendments that they table force Ministers into a discussion with civil servants and draftspersons, to make the Bill that crucial bit better. I suspect that, if we rush this legislation through, we shall not produce a good Bill.
  I am disappointed that the Home Secretary's approach is to produce a vague Bill, which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen said, will be filled out as a result of case law. But we are told that there is a problem now, and we want to provide some certainty for people who are distressed and upset about being stalked. They should be relieved now, without having to take their case all the way to the Appeal Court. My hon. Friend attempted to make the original Bill clear so that anybody could understand it.
  If a police officer trying to advise somebody picks up this Bill, he cannot say that certain behaviour is all right, because it will have to be tested in the courts. This is not a particularly good document for the police to use; it is certainly not a good document for a lawyer to use when advising somebody. Lawyers always say "on the one hand" and "on the other hand". We want clarity and we do not get it from this Bill.
  My next complaint is that the problem will not be solved simply by changing the law; we need more resources. The Government claim that very few cases will be involved. If that is so, the legislation will not meet the needs that exist out there in the country. If there are more cases than the Government say, from where will the
  810
  resources come? Either the police will not use the legislation, in which case there is no point in us passing it, or they will have to take resources from somewhere else. If the legislation is to work, we need more resources.
  I wish to ask the Home Secretary about the exemption if someone is behaving reasonably. Many people are involved in harassing other people and do it perfectly legitimately. The Leader of the Opposition tries to harass the Prime Minister, and I am sure that no one would complain about that. Most Members of Parliament try to harass Ministers, and it is our job to do so. Most hon. Members will admit to harassing a fair number of civil servants and officials in their constituencies to get justice for their constituents.
  The housing officers in Thameside and Stockport must sometimes feel, when I ring them up and bend their ears, that I am harassing and pressing them. I think that that is perfectly legitimate and that I could defend my behaviour. Most people would say that it is reasonable for a Member of Parliament to act in that way on behalf of his or her constituents to put right an injustice.
  What about a constituent who tries to put right an injustice for himself? Does he has the same defence? This seems to be one of the problems. If someone can say that he is a debt collector and operating as such, his behaviour will be acceptable when he harasses people to pay their debts. But what happens if an individual tries to get people to settle their debts?
  Recently, a constituent had some work done by a local builder whose standard of work was appalling. He went to the small claims court and was awarded money, but then the builder said that he was not Joe Bloggs the builder but John Jones the builder. Everyone knows the trick: builders move easily from one business to the next, leaving their debts behind them. My constituent followed that individual around for a week and every person that the builder talked to was handed a note by my constituent explaining his claim for money. Eventually, he got his money. I think that that was harassment, but justified harassment. I am concerned that my constituent, acting as an individual to try to get that money, could not claim that he was a professional debt collector.
  What about the Child Support Agency? That government body has the right to sue people for money, but what about an individual who feels that the CSA is not doing enough and wants to provide extra evidence to it? Would that be legitimate?
  What about journalists? Moreover, when is a journalist a journalist, and when is he not? If he or she has full-time paid employment, there will be little doubt, but if he or she is freelance there are difficulties. A particular problem for a journalist is that, with hindsight, all sorts of things can be seen to be unreasonable but at the time it may have seemed to the journalist that they were reasonable.
  What about writers? We often read articles in newspapers saying that a certain biography was authorised and they usually say what a nice person the subject was, but how legitimately can someone trying to produce an unauthorised biography go about collecting information under this legislation, and when does it become harassment?
  I could give many more examples, but the Government must deal with the question of the defence of someone pursuing a legitimate occupation.
  Sir Ivan Lawrence: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that he would be on to a better point if he explained that,

  811
  as the word "reasonable" is understood in different ways by different people in different circumstances, the real criticism of this part of the Bill is that it will provide endless work for lawyers, at considerable public cost?
  Mr. Bennett: I fully accept that point. As I said at the beginning, it is important to be clear so that people know what they are entitled to do. They should not have to wait until lawyers have made a lot of money out of this matter and until there have been 20 cases over five or six years to establish what the law is.
  It was claimed that the Bill would cover harassment by groups. I am not sure how that will work, and I hope that the Minister will explain. The last two cases of racial harassment with which I dealt involved not just one individual but a group of people—five or six—living in the same street who all behaved in a racist way towards someone attempting to move into that street. I should have thought that one or two of the people involved might be involved in two or more incidents, but I suspect that encouragement of collective action was the problem.
  More recently, I tried to persuade one of my constituents to give evidence in a particularly nasty case. The intimidation that he suffered as a witness was carried out not by one individual but by a group of people who all believed that they liked the accused person and wanted to make things as difficult as possible for anybody acting as a witness.
  I want a clear statement from the Home Secretary that the Bill will not be used against protesters. This country has always believed in freedom of speech and freedom to demonstrate. There seems to be a narrow line between protesting and demonstrating, and harassment. I hope that the Minister will make that clear.
  I wish to tell the House about two incidents in my constituency where I believe that what is needed are resources rather than legislation. Not long ago, a reasonable couple came to see me at my advice bureau in Reddish and said what terrible neighbours they had. There had been a dispute about a boundary fence and their neighbour had acted utterly unreasonably and outrageously. I must admit that I believed that, from what was described to me, the neighbour had behaved outrageously. I went on to my second advice bureau, which I do in the evening, at Denton, where another reasonable couple came to see me and said that their neighbours were utterly unreasonable and had behaved outrageously. The two couples lived next door to each other and were describing each other. Had I heard only one story, I would have been convinced that someone should take action on that couple's behalf against the neighbours.
  The problem with those situations is that there is a good chance that the police or lawyers will hear only one side of the story. The only advice I could give to the couples once I knew the situation was that they should move, but of course both couples thought that the other couple should move. It will be difficult to resolve the issue satisfactorily, although the four people are all reasonable except when involved in that neighbours' dispute. If we had the resources for a conciliation service, it could bring the four together and explain to them all that they are harassing their neighbours and that, if they cannot come to some accommodation, the only solution is for one pair to move.
  812
  The final example I wish to mention is that of a young lady who came to see me with a worrying case. She described how she was being followed and said that there were people spying on her. I assumed, as she talked, that she was suffering from paranoia and that she did not have a case, but I agreed to take it up with the police and social security. I wrote to both services asking them to confirm that they were not carrying out surveillance and, much to my surprise, someone from the social security fraud squad rang me up and said, "Look, I should not really tell you this, but we have made a terrible mistake in this case. We have been carrying out surveillance because we thought she was claiming benefit while she was working, but we now know the whole history of the case. The police were making inquiries because they thought that she was involved in illegal activities." In that case, because I found out the full story, I was able to tell my constituent that there had been a mistake, people had been following her for what they thought were legitimate reasons and it would all stop.
  The problem with the legislation is that various people are exempt, but how will individuals be told that whoever is following them is exempt? That will be difficult, because people might have legitimate worries that they are being harassed and the only way to tell them that that is not happening would be to say that a government agency had been carrying out surveillance on them and causing them upset unnecessarily. The Government must consider how information will be passed on in those circumstances to reassure people that what they believe to be harassment is not harassment, but the Government legitimately checking up on them. In most cases, either the surveillance will result in a prosecution because the person was committing some offence or that person can be assured that it has stopped.
  It is unfortunate that the measure is being rushed through the House. We should have had much more time for scrutiny. I hope that we can pursue some of the amendments and that, as has happened so often when legislation has been rushed through the House, the real scrutiny will take place in the House of Lords. I hope that the Lords will show more vigour than is likely to be shown in the Commons.
  7.22 pm
  Ms Janet Anderson: I wish to start by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), the Home Secretary and everyone who has contributed to the debate for their gracious comments about my attempts earlier this year to try to do something about the important issue of stalking. I also wish to place on record the fact that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn made clear, we support the Bill and are anxious to see it on the statute book as quickly as possible.
  The hon. Member for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Griffiths), who is not in his place, referred to men being stalked. He is right; and I have corresponded with a number of men who have been stalked. The problem is predominantly faced by women, but I notice that, in The Independent the other day, there was a letter from a woman who was being stalked by another woman. Clearly the crime is no respecter of gender.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) spoke about the extent of agreement on the Bill, and I endorse his comments. It is welcome when we

  813
  are able to co-operate across the Floor of the House, and I am sure that the public would welcome it if we did it a bit more often. My hon. Friend is well known for his long interest in the private security industry. He has continued to press for regulation of that industry, as recommended by the Home Affairs Select Committee, which is chaired by the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence). We hope that, one day, the Government will introduce such regulation.
  The hon. and learned Member for Burton gave me much encouragement in my efforts, and I am grateful. I learned much from him when I was a member of the Select Committee that he chairs so expertly, but he referred disingenuously to my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn as causing mischief. I can assure him that that was not the intention of my hon. Friend. There is still some concern that the Bill will cause problems for journalists. I have a copy of a letter from the Guild of Editors, which states:
  "The Guild remains concerned at the ease with which the Bill's provisions could be used to curb the media rather than protect the victims of stalking."
  May I say to the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mrs. Maddock)—who has temporarily left her place—how much I welcome her party's support for action to tackle stalking, which seemed to appear at its recent annual conference. The hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason) mentioned the problem of neighbours. He might like to read the proposals of my hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn in our "Quiet Life" document, which would tackle the neighbour problems of which he spoke.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) spoke, rightly, of the need for greater detail and stricter definition. None of us could have failed to be moved by his horrific tale about the case in his constituency. Like him, I hope that women will be encouraged to go to the police and to complain as a result of this and, I hope, future legislation. My hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) spoke about private Members' Bills and how they have sometimes managed to reach the statute book with the right spirit of cross-party co-operation. I could not agree more with what he said.
  It is unusual, but welcome, that, in a Chamber so dominated by men, we should debate an issue of serious concern to women. The Police Federation estimates that 3,000 people fall victim to stalkers every year and that the overwhelming majority of them are women. As with domestic violence—also largely a crime committed by men against women—there has perhaps been a reluctance for too long to address the menace of stalking.
  I am sure that those witnessing the debate today, especially the victims of stalkers, wonder why it has taken so long to get round to doing anything about a problem that causes such misery to thousands of women. Women have seen their relationships torn apart and their children taken into care because they have suffered such enormous psychological damage that they can no longer cope. Women have been made afraid to venture out alone and too frightened to pick up the telephone. Women's lives have been left in tatters by the torment they have suffered at the hands of stalkers.
  Each year, the women on the Opposition Benches try to mark International Women's Day by highlighting issues of concern to women. My hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Ms Coffey) secured a slot for a ten-minute
  814
  Bill in March. In a spirit that I suspect is more common among Labour Members than Conservative, she asked me to use it to introduce a Bill to combat stalking. That Bill, as we know, was blocked by the Government on 10 May. I recently asked the Home Secretary why the Government felt that any differences between us about the contents of my Bill could not have been resolved in Committee. He replied that
  "there was no time and there would not have been full and proper consultation."—[Official Report, 28 October 1996; Vol. 284, c. 336.]
  However, it has taken the Government a full nine months to come forward with their proposals.
  If a week is a long time in politics, nine months must have seemed like an eternity for the victims of stalkers. As for consultation, the Home Secretary and his colleagues know that we consulted widely on my Bill before it was published. We took advice from the police, from lawyers who had been involved in stalking cases, from the Home Secretary's officials at the Home Office—at the express invitation of the Minister of State—from the Lord Chancellor, from the Suzy Lamplugh Trust and from the national anti-stalking and harassment campaign. Most important, we consulted the victims of stalkers. We even consulted Conservative Members, and I have their replies in front of me. The hon. and learned Member for Burton made a number of suggestions that we were careful to include in the final draft.
  The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) wrote to me on 2 May, commenting on the draft Bill that I had sent her. She said:
  "Dear Janet, Thank you for your note re: Stalking. It looks fine to me!"
  In his letter to me of 4 May, the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Sir M. Shersby) said:
  "Thank you for sending me a copy of your draft Bill on stalking. I think this is a very good effort and provides a very good basis for discussion with the Minister at the Home Office."
  What did the Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean), say about the Bill, for he too was sent a draft of it on 22 April, two weeks before it was published? He declined to comment until the eve of the Second Reading—no doubt he was consulting. He said that he regretted that the scope of my Bill was "too wide". He continued:
  "It could mean that innocent people going about their lawful business would find themselves branded as criminals."
  He also said:
  "I do not think there is a political difference between us."
  Is he not aware that it is widely believed that a political difference prevented the Government from working with us nine months ago to provide relief for the victims of stalking?
  It is also widely believed that the Home Secretary could not stomach the idea of backing a Labour Bill. The hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Bates), the duty Government Whip, was moved to shout, "Object," on 10 May to block our Stalking Bill. He has now received his reward and stepped neatly into the ministerial shoes of the dissembling hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts).
  Mr. Peter Luff: That is not worthy of the hon. Lady.
  Ms Anderson: If the hon. Gentleman listens, he might learn something. The hon. Member for Havant truly learned the lesson: "Never put in writing what you would not wish to see reprinted on the front page of The Sun."

  815
  We cannot know how many victims could have been helped sooner. In the absence of a specific anti-stalking law, it has been difficult for victims to seek redress other than through charges such as grievous bodily harm. That has inevitably taken up hours of the courts' time while lawyers argued that the charge covered psychological harm. It worked in the case of Peri Southall, who was stalked by Clarence Morris; he was found guilty. It worked also for Tracy Sant, who had endured three years of mental torture during a campaign of harassment and intimidation by Anthony Burstow, but it took five days of tortuous legal wrangling to get a conviction.
  It did not work for Margaret Bent, who was allegedly stalked by Dennis Chambers during an unrelenting four-year campaign that began simply after he saw her in the street. Dennis Chambers, who offered no defence to the charge of causing Miss Bent grievous bodily harm, walked free and Margaret Bent faced the added ordeal of being cross-examined by Chambers, who chose to defend himself. It is no wonder that Margaret's mother was moved to say:
  "I hope the judge and the jury some day experience what I have experienced with my daughter. He made her life a hell for four years, not only hers but everyone in her family and her friends".
  Margaret Bent is one woman who might have been sleeping easier in her bed tonight if something had been done sooner to help the victims of stalking. However, the stalking menace was ideal for the kind of action that the Home Secretary likes to unveil at Conservative party conferences—and that is what he did.
  Mr. Maclean: This is unnecessary and stupid.
  Ms Anderson: If the Minister will be more patient, he will understand my reasons for repeating the Home Secretary's words. At the party conference, the right hon. and learned Gentleman said:
  "There is one group of offenders from whom the public needs special protection. Stalkers. They can make a woman's life a misery … Terrified prisoners of someone else's obsession. We need quick and effective remedies for the less serious cases. And tough sanctions for the most serious. And today I can announce that we shall have them. Women deserve that protection … And I will make sure they get it."
  The explanatory note for editors, appended to the Home Secretary's speech, clearly stated:
  "The Government proposes to deal with the menace of stalking through a combination of civil and criminal remedies".
  We could have been forgiven for believing that the much-trumpeted commitment would be included in the Queen's Speech—that the Government might keep their promise and bring forward their own legislation—but no, the measure was consigned to a private Member's Bill.
  How strange it is that what could not be achieved by a private Member's Bill many months before would now be tackled in precisely that manner. Only when my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition showed his readiness to put party politics aside, was the Prime Minister forced to concede that the Government would introduce their own legislation. I suspect that that was as much a surprise for the Home Secretary as it was for us.
  At last we have the Bill before us today. In May, the Home Secretary said:
  816
  "the Government had been preparing its own legislation to counter the menace of stalking for some time".
  He described my Bill as, "rushed, botched and unworkable" but, in the end, he has brought forward a Bill that is remarkably similar. In May, the Home Secretary said:
  "as soon as we are satisfied that we have a workable definition of the crime, we will legislate".
  Surprisingly, he has now introduced a Bill with practically no definition at all. Seemingly any activity that a court "reasonably" decides is harassment is just that, and if a court thinks that certain activities were causing fear of violence, they were. Ministers claimed that our definition was unworkable, but theirs is virtually non-existent.
  There can be no clearer example of the Opposition leading where the Government have failed to act. As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition famously said, he leads his party—in contrast to the Prime Minister, who follows his. On guns, knives, paedophiles, criminally anti-social neighbours and stalking, Labour has led the way. I am sure that the lesson is not lost on a country that looks increasingly to the Opposition for constructive law and order solutions.
  7.36 pm
  Mr. Howard: With the leave of the House, I should like to reply to the debate.
  We have just heard a ludicrous speech that was unworthy of the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Ms Anderson). She claimed credit a moment ago for the Leader of the Opposition, who she said had put party politics aside in his speech on the Loyal Address. That accusation could never be levelled at the hon. Lady in light of her contribution.
  The truth about the matter that we are debating this evening is that stalking is a serious menace from which countless women, in particular, suffer greatly. Nothing could do more harm to those women than to cobble together an unprepared Bill, rush it on to the statute book, and pretend that it offered them relief. Earlier today, I paid tribute to the hon. Lady and congratulated her on raising the matter last year in her private Member's Bill. As my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Sir M. Shersby) said in his letter—which the hon. Lady quoted in her speech—the Bill provided a useful basis for discussion with Ministers.
  We discussed the issue with her, but her Bill would not have provided an adequate statutory remedy to the mischief with which we all want to deal. It was deficient in a number of respects, which I identified with some precision earlier this afternoon. It does no one any justice to gather an absolute farrago of inaccuracies in an attempt to demonstrate that the Government's reaction to the hon. Lady's Bill last year was based on a desire—the hon. Lady made this specific accusation—not to support an Opposition private Member's Bill. What utter nonsense.
  Ms Janet Anderson: It is not.
  Mr. Howard: Let me give the hon. Lady an example from this Session. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Wray) introduced a private Member's Bill on knives. He and the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) said, "We should like to introduce a Bill on knives, and this is the Bill we want." They showed us the Bill and we said,

  817
  "We don't think much of your Bill, because we don't think it would work. We are keen to help you if you want to put a sensible measure to deal with knives on the statute book, and we will provide you with a Bill." That is exactly what we did.
  With the Government's full support, the hon. Gentleman, who came first in the private Members' ballot—a Labour Member—introduced a Bill on knives, which was drafted and proposed by the Government. We do not have the slightest difficulty supporting a Bill proposed by a Labour Member. To suggest the contrary is completely untrue from start to finish. The hon. Lady should know that, and she should know better than to make disgraceful accusations, as she did during her appalling speech.
  The hon. Lady is giggling away on the Front Bench. She had the temerity to claim that she had consulted the National Anti-stalking and Harassment Campaign. I have the specific authority of its director to say that she rejects very strongly the idea that the hon. Lady consulted that body about her stalking proposals. That was simply not the case, and that fact should be placed on the record.
  I remind the hon. Lady exactly why her Bill was defective. In the first place, it would not have provided a defence for people who are engaged in legitimate activities, such as journalists and others who have been mentioned by Opposition Members, including the hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George). In that respect, it was too wide. We had to give the matter a great deal of thought, and to consult carefully before we were able to propose a solution to that problem.
  In another respect, the hon. Lady's Bill was too narrow, because it proceeded by way of a list of examples of conduct that would constitute stalking. The trouble with such a list is that, although the Bill may say—as hers did—that the list is without prejudice to the generality of the scope of the clause, such matters are subject to principles of statutory construction and interpretation.
  One of those principles—if the hon. Lady is interested—is called the ejusdem generis rule, which requires such a list to be construed as though it could be extended to cover things of the same nature as those in the list. As the list in the hon. Lady's Bill concentrated entirely on activities characteristic of classic stalking, it would not have covered activities that constitute racial harassment or that come under the heading of harassment of one neighbour by another. That is the truth of the matter.
  Ms Anderson: That was never intended.
  Mr. Howard: In that case, the world at large will welcome the fact that our Bill does intend to cover such activities.
  Ms Anderson: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Howard: No, not until I have finished making this point.
  Many people will welcome the fact that our Bill gives protection to victims of racial harassment and to the victims of the activities of noisy neighbours. They will not have counted it an advantage of the hon. Lady's Bill that it excluded such activities.
  Ms Anderson: May I reaffirm what the right hon. and learned Gentleman clearly understands? I want to put on
  818
  record the fact that my Bill was never intended to deal with the problems of criminally anti-social neighbours and racial harassment. As I am sure he knows, the Opposition have for some time had proposals on those matters. We are pleased that the Government have at last addressed those problems and have copied many of our proposals.
  Mr. Howard: Let me explain the deficiencies of the hon. Lady's approach in words that are more pointed and eloquent than any I could devise. At the Suzy Lamplugh Trust conference in October, a victim of a stalker told my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, "If you have a list of activities which you ban, my stalker will simply sit down and work out another activity with which to torment me." That was the deficiency of the hon. Lady's Bill, and the present Bill seeks to remedy that.
  Ms Anderson rose—
  Mr. Howard: I believe that the Bill does remedy that deficiency, which is why it was worth waiting—
  Ms Anderson rose—
  Mr. Howard: I shall give way in a moment.
  It was worth waiting a few months—not many months—to prepare proper and effective legislation, which I believe we have achieved with our Bill.
  Ms Anderson: I refer the Home Secretary to the definition in my Bill. Indeed it had a list—it drew on the experience of other countries that have anti-stalking laws—but it was not exhaustive. We were careful to include a catch-all phrase, which was presumably why he said at the time that the Bill was drawn too widely. It referred to a person who
  "does any other act or acts in connection with another person so as to be reasonably likely to cause that other person to feel harassed, alarmed, distressed"
  and so on.
  I emphasise the fact that the list was not exhaustive. Perhaps the victim who spoke to the Minister of State at the conference did not understand that.
  Mr. Howard: I fear that it is the hon. Lady who does not understand. I shall explain it to her yet again. We said that her Bill was too wide—not because of the clause to which she has just referred, but because it did not provide a defence to people engaged in legitimate activities. I have already said that twice, and this is the third time. I shall say it a fourth time if necessary, but that is the truth of the matter.
  The clause to which the hon. Lady referred would not have provided a solution to the problem that I identified earlier. Lists are construed according to the nature of the activities that are put in them. That is the deficiency of the list approach, which is why we said, correctly, that the hon. Lady's Bill was too narrow in that respect.
  Mr. McNamara: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is jumping from place to place. He referred to the ejusdem generis rule in relation to racial harassment. My hon. Friend's Bill stated specifically that all other matters that reflect stalking would be included. The ejusdem generis rule would have covered that.
  Mr. Howard: It would not have covered that, because the ejusdem generis rule means that the list is interpreted

  819
  and constructed in accordance with the nature of the activities that are identified. It is the hon. Gentleman who is rushing about all over the place. He is trying to contend that his hon. Friend's Bill would have covered racial harassment. The hon. Lady herself has just argued that she never intended that her Bill should cover racial harassment. The hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways.
  Mr. McNamara: I did not say that. I specifically said to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that he was jumping the ground by saying that my hon. Friend's Bill was not covered by the rule because it included racial harassment. We said specifically that it did not include racial harassment, so the rule applied.
  Mr. Howard: That is precisely why the Bill was too narrow. I do not know why the hon. Gentleman is getting so excited about that. It was too narrow because it did not cover those other activities from which people suffer a great deal of harm, which give rise to a great deal of mischief and for which Parliament should provide a remedy. That is why our Bill deals with those aspects of the mischief, and specifically provides remedies for those problems.
  Mr. George Howarth rose—
  Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman wants to intervene to help his hon. Friend.
  Mr. Howarth: My hon. Friend needs no help at all. Indeed, given that she was making, as it were, her maiden speech from the Dispatch Box, I think that she has done very well. Certainly she does not need my help; my purpose is to help the Home Secretary.
  Will the Home Secretary make it clear once and for all whether he thinks that the scope of my hon. Friend's Bill was too wide, or whether he thinks that it was too narrow? He has made both allegations in the space of two minutes. [Interruption.] Conservative Members do not like to hear this, but the Home Secretary said that my hon. Friend's Bill was defective in that it would not allow people going about their legitimate business to do so. What does he think was the purpose of clause 4 of that Bill? The clause stated:
  "No person acting under statutory or other lawful authority insofar as he acts within that authority shall be guilty of an offence under this Act."
  Does that not constitute an exception and a defence? Precisely the problem that the Home Secretary said existed in my hon. Friend's Bill was covered in it.
  Mr. Howard: I will explain—for, I think, the fifth time. The hon. Lady's Bill was too wide in one respect, and too narrow in another. It was too narrow because of the list, as I have just said, and it was too wide because it did not provide a defence for those who were engaged in legitimate activities but not under any statutory authority. A journalist who may be pursuing an investigation is certainly not acting under any such authority. This Bill, however, deals specifically with the matter by setting a standard: whether it is reasonable for someone to act in such a way in the circumstances. That
  820
  is entirely different from the misconceived approach adopted in the hon. Lady's Bill, which would not have worked. [Interruption.] The approach to which the hon. Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth) keeps referring would not have achieved that objective, for reasons that I have explained very clearly.
  I owe the hon. Lady an apology: I had not appreciated that this was her maiden speech from the Front Bench. I welcome her to the Front Bench, and trust that the other speeches that she will make from it in due course will be a substantial improvement on her effort tonight.
  Sir Ivan Lawrence: I fear that my right hon. and learned Friend is, characteristically, being too kind to the hon. Lady. Did her Bill not contain two serious deficiencies that he has not mentioned? It would have made the same penalty available for both stalking causing harassment and the other offence of stalking causing fear for safety, which would obviously not have been very sensible. Moreover, the hon. Lady's Bill was intended to reverse the burden of proof: the defence would have had to prove that the defendant did not know that his actions would have the alleged effect. That would have delayed the Bill considerably, because if anything causes controversy in this place, it is the reversal of the burden of proof.
  Mr. Howard: My hon. and learned Friend is right, but it would take me a long time to list all the many imperfections in the hon. Lady's Bill. I was concentrating on the main structural weaknesses—the weaknesses of principle—and trying to explain why we needed to take some time to consider these matters carefully and to consult widely. That is the basis on which we have been able to present proposals that will not disappoint the many women who suffer as a result of the activities that the legislation is designed to remedy. Our proposals will not dash their hopes, or give rise to false hopes by enacting legislation that would be imperfect and would not work; they will lead to the enactment of effective legislation that will give those women—and not only women, as we have heard—the remedy to which they are entitled.
  On that basis, I commend the Bill to the House. I believe that it will significantly help victims of the kind of activity that gives concern to hon. Members in all parties.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Coe.]
  Bill immediately considered in Committee.
  [DAME JANET FOOKES in the Chair]

  Protection from Harassment Bill
    Clause 1

      PROHIBITION OF HARASSMENT
      7.55 pm
      Mr. Bennett: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 8, leave out "or ought to know".
      The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Janet Fookes): With this, it will be convenient to discuss also the following amendments: No. 22, in page 1, line 10, leave out subsection (2).

      821
      No. 12, in page 1, line 13, at end insert—
      '(2A) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection 2 above, a person pursues a course of conduct amounting to harassment if he:

      (a) follows, loiters near, watches or approaches another person;

      (b) telephones (which for the avoidance of doubt shall include telephoning a person but remaining silent during the call), contacts by other electronic means, or otherwise contacts another person;

      (c) loiters near, watches, approaches or enters a place where another person lives works or repeatedly visits;

      (d) interferes with property which does not belong to him and is in the possession of another person;

      (e) leaves offensive, unwarranted or unsolicited material at a place where another person lives, works or regularly visits; or

      (f) gives offensive, unwarranted or unsolicited material to another person

      so as to be reasonably likely to cause that other person to feel harassed, alarmed, distressed or to fear for his safety or for that of one or more third persons to whom he has a duty of protection or with whom he is associated.'.
      No. 5, in clause 4, clause 4, page 2, line 27, leave out 'or ought to know'.
      No. 23, in clause 4, page 2, line 29, leave out subsection (2).
      No. 18, in clause 4, page 2, line 33, at end insert—
      `(2A) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (2) above, a person pursues a course of conduct for the purposes of this section when he persistently behaves in any of the ways mentioned in section 1 (2) or (2A) above'.
      No. 9, in clause 7, clause 7, page 3, leave out lines 39 and 40.
      No. 10, in clause 7, page 3, line 41, leave out 'two' and insert 'three'.
      Mr. Bennett: This brings us straight back to one of the central issues that featured on Second Reading—the question whether the Government's approach is the best, or whether something clearer and more specific is needed.
      Clause 1(1)(b) states that a person must not pursue a course of conduct "which he knows" amounts to harassment. There is clearly no problem with that except when someone wishes to prosecute, when it will be extremely difficult to prove intent. The Government therefore added the catch-all "or ought to know"—which poses the difficult question of what someone "ought to know". That is made conditional on subsection (2), which deals with the word "harassment", and on subsection (3), which deals with the question of reversing proof and proving that what was done was reasonable. That was the basis of the castigation that we heard from the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence).
      I do not think that the Government's approach is the best. I think that it would be far better for us to try to provide certainty in legislation, rather than leaving it to be provided in case law resulting from a series of cases based on what constitutes harassment, what is reasonable and what someone ought to know.
      Obviously, there are alternative approaches. Amendment No. 12 puts back the list that was in the Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Ms Anderson). If the Government really want to deal with the problem, they should consider a compromise between their approach and that of my hon. Friend,
      822
      making it easy for a person to understand that, if he pursues a certain course of conduct, he can be accused of harassment, that he will have committed an offence and that he can be punished for it.
      The Home Secretary has argued that, if a list is included, the court must take notice of it, and will take less notice of any catch-all at the end of the list. If he really feels that he cannot put such a list in the Bill, he should look to the various devices that Parliament comes up with—codes of practice, regulations and guidance—so that, if he insists on a catch-all phrase, there is a simple way for a police officer to explain to someone that, if he continues to behave in such a way, he will be involved in harassment, and a lawyer giving advice will have a document allowing him to say, "This looks as though it would fall foul of the law."
      Therefore, in practice, the Government have not really solved the problems by going for a wide definition using the phrases "ought to know", "harassment" and "reasonable". That will be a marvellous area for lawyers to work over for many years. Instead of solving the problems of someone being stalked, it may mean that persons face much more upset and worry because their court case will become long running.
      I therefore hope that, in responding to this group of amendments, the Government will recognise that there is a problem with the clause and will clarify it.
      8 pm
      Mr. Maclean: Amendment No. 1 would fundamentally damage the Bill's effectiveness. The great difficulty in using existing law to prevent harassing conduct is that the stalker will not always intend to cause harassment. That is why we ensured in clause 1 that a person is prohibited from pursuing a course of conduct, not only where he knows that it causes harassment, but where he ought to know that harassment would be caused. A person ought to know that that course of conduct would amount to harassment in circumstances where a reasonable person, in possession of the same information, would think that the course of conduct amounted to harassment of the other person.
      The amendment serves to ensure merely that the offence of causing harassment will apply only where intent could be proved. That would go no further than existing laws, which both victims' organisations and the police agree are inadequate to deal with stalkers who claim that they do not intend to cause harassment to their victim. Victims of stalking need protection against such stalkers. Clause 1 provides it. We cannot accept any amendment that weakens that position.
      The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) commented that the Home Secretary had said that the list system would mean that the courts would take less notice of the catch-all at the end of the list. That is not exactly the correct interpretation. It is not that the courts would take less notice of the so-called catch-all at the end of the list, but that, under the courts' rules of construction and interpretation, they would interpret that catch-all as being in the same generic list as the actual list. It would cease, therefore, to be a general catch-all and be regarded as a narrowly defined catch-all of exactly the activities specified in the list.

      823
      I cannot accept the hon. Gentleman's amendment, which would fundamentally weaken the Bill, and I hope that he will see fit to withdraw it.
      Mr. Bennett: On a point of order, Dame Janet. From the list that I have, I thought that a whole series of other amendments were grouped with amendment No. 1. Is that correct?
      The Second Deputy Chairman: Yes it is. Indeed the hon. Gentleman will recall that, when I first called amendment No. 1 out, I mentioned that it was grouped with others. It is not a matter for the occupant of the Chair to decide how much a Member or a Minister shall say about the other amendments in the group.
      Mr. Bennett: Further to that point of order, Dame Janet. The point was that I had thought that my hon. Friends on the Front Bench might have wanted to speak to their amendments that are grouped with amendment No. 1. I was not sure that they were aware that they were.
      Ms Janet Anderson: We do not intend to press this to a vote, but we would like to explore the thinking behind the Bill's definition and how the Government think that it might work in practice.
      Given some of the comments by Conservative Members about our amendments, may I specifically refer them to a letter from the Association of County Councils, which says that its
      "worry about the Bill as drafted is that it is drawn in very wide terms. For example, 'harassment' is not specifically defined, and it appears that the Bill covers harassment whether in the home, the workplace, on the streets, etc. I am not saying that this is wrong, merely that it does not seem clear."
      I have already mentioned that the Guild of British Newspaper Editors is concerned about the effect on the media.
      May I also reiterate the views of the Suzy Lamplugh Trust, which, as we all know, has long taken an interest in this issue. A letter from Anne Strahan, the trust's projects and research manager, apologises to me for her comments to the Daily Mail.
      Mr. Maclean: We have had this before.
      Ms Anderson: Yes, but, believe me, it is worth repeating, if the Minister will just be patient.
      The letter states:
      "At the time of speaking to the Daily Mail yesterday, I misunderstood the intention of the amendments within the Bill, assuming these amendments to override the more general nature of the Bill. As an extra provision to the Bill, these amendments would in fact strengthen rather than weaken the Bill.
      The Trust is very pleased that Labour are still working to improve the Bill".
      I hope therefore that Minister will understand that that is the spirit in which I have tabled the amendments.
      The amendments seek to add to the definitions laid out for the lower offence of harassment and the higher offence of causing fear of violence. I know that the Home
      824
      Secretary recognises the need to get the definition right when legislating to combat the menace of stalking. On 10 May, in an interview on "The World at One", he said:
      "Stalking is a particularly difficult thing to define, which is why we are taking some care to make sure that we get it right. As soon as we have a workable definition of the crime we will legislate";
      so, as I say, we would like to explore with the Minister whether the Bill's definition is workable, which, presumably, he considers it to be. That is why we have tabled the amendments.
      Basically, the Government definitions, as laid out in clause 1(2) and clause 4(2), say that, if a court reasonably believes that someone's actions constitute harassment or are causing fear of violence, then they are. As the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) said, it is not inconceivable—I know that this might be welcomed by Conservative Members and indeed by some Labour Members—that that could generate much additional work for lawyers.
      As the Bill stands, theoretically, people engaging in innocent activities, of which a judge happens to disapprove, could be caught. They may include shouting at a referee from the terraces at a football match on more than one occasion. I hope that the Minister will reassure us about that.
      It is some two and a half years since the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) first moved an amendment to the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 to seek to establish a criminal offence of stalking. As, I am sure, the Minister knows, that amendment had been drafted for her by the Police Federation, which had long called for such a criminal offence.
      The definition that we are seeking to add to the Government's Bill is not exhaustive. It would strengthen the Bill. I admit I am not a lawyer but, whatever Conservative Members say, they have not yet answered whether they think that our Bill—essentially we are seeking to put the majority of my definition into the Government's Bill—is too wide or too narrow. Perhaps the Minister will deal with that again when he responds.
      The purpose of amendments Nos. 12 and 18 is to give guidance to the courts. If judges are to apply this Bill, they will need clearer terms of reference than the Government have provided. Otherwise, we estimate a possible rash of costly and time-consuming appeals, which is presumably why the hon. and learned Member for Burton said that it would provide work for lawyers.
      Other countries, such as the United States, Canada and Australia, have all introduced laws to combat stalking and we know that the Government have been considering those laws closely in their efforts to find the workable definition that the Home Secretary was after. We also considered the experience of those countries when drawing up our stalking Bill. The relevant law in those countries often gives greater guidance to the courts as to what might constitute stalking. Activities such as pursuing or following a person, unwarranted surveillance, lying in wait for someone, non-consensual communication and trespass all feature in the definitions used in those countries.
      The Minister said in written answers to me that the Government did not feel the need to have such a list system. One of their reasons was that many of those activities were already offences in Britain. I should be

      825
      grateful if the Minister would go through the activities that are specified in other countries' legislation and tell us precisely where they are offences in Britain.
      We based amendments Nos. 12 and 18 on the definition employed in Queensland, Australia, and elements of the best practice of the US and Canada. It is virtually the same as the definition in the Stalking Bill and lays out the most common examples of stalking activity.
      It is not our intention to detract in any way from the proposals in the Government's Bill. We merely seek to give greater guidance to the courts when they implement the Bill's provisions.
      Mr. Maclean: It may not be the Opposition's intention to detract in any way from the Bill's provisions, but the unintended effect of their amendment is that it diminishes the protections in the Bill. It is not just a matter of my opinion. It is a matter of the technicalities of construction of statute law. The danger with the list system is that the court will have to construe the provision according to the items on the list. If a phrase such as "and any other activity" is inserted, the court, under the ejusdem generis rule, must construe those other activities narrowly, according to the general characteristics that have already been given in the long list that the hon. Lady provided.
      There is another practical difficulty. I do not know how anyone present in the Chamber could face a victim in a couple of years. After the Bill has had its Third Reading and comes back from another place, we will all be making speeches and saying that we have now given victims protection and that never again will poor, innocent victims be subject to stalkers. In a couple of years we will find that some weirdo is stalking women and abusing some activity that has not been caught in the list. That is the danger.
      The hon. Lady said that her list was not exhaustive. Of course it is not exhaustive, nor is it complete. I would be more relaxed about a list system if I thought that it could be complete. Unfortunately, we are dealing with people who have some very weird ideas, and there are potentially hundreds of such people, or thousands if the Bill does not deter them. They can get up to pretty weird activities. It is impossible to define all the stalking activities that people could get up to. That is why it is best to stick to the harassment definition and concentrate on the effect of the weird activity on the victim.
      Mrs. Maria Fyfe: The opening phrase of amendment No. 2 states:
      "Without prejudice to the generality of subsection 2".
      Surely that covers the Minister's objection. The Labour amendment simply expands on that point.
      Mr. Maclean: For the umpteenth time: no, it does not. Adding a catch-all at the end does not achieve what it seems to achieve. Judges must interpret catch-ails at the end of lists in statute according to certain rules that the courts have developed for the way in which they go about interpretation. The ejusdem generis rule assumes that, if Parliament added a catch-all, Parliament intended it to be interpreted according to the other characteristics in the list. It is not a wide-ranging catch-all. The best catch-all is to stick to the word "harassment".
      That is not just my opinion; it is the opinion that we got after consultation. The Government did not pluck out of thin air the idea of plain, bald harassment, without
      826
      considering any other ideas or suggestions. That is the suggestion that we put in our consultation paper. Following that wide-ranging consultation, there was widespread support for the proposal to use the concept of harassment and to concentrate on the effect of the activity on the victim, making that the criminal offence, rather than trying to define a list of activities that Parliament thought bad at one particular time, knowing full well that stalkers and those who harass victims are, by their very nature, dashed clever at finding other weird activities.
      I shall quote what my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary said when he quoted a victim at the Suzy Lamplugh Trust conference. Those words should be burned on our brains before we come to a view on this part of the Bill. That victim—not a politician or a lawyer—said:
      "If you have a list of activities which you ban, my stalker will simply sit down and work out another activity with which to torment me."
      I do not want to stand in the House in two years or write letters to my constituents or those of other hon. Members, explaining how the law was inadequate because we went for a list and some weirdo got round the list and made life hell for another victim. We do not have to do that, because the proposals in the Bill represent the best way of tackling the problem.
      8.15 pm
      Let us not worry about what any one of a thousand activities might be. Let us worry about the effect on the victim. If the effect is to cause harassment to the victim, we can trigger the offence and the provisions in the Bill for civil remedy and criminal defences.
      I could say more on the clause. I have not discussed some of the other amendments, which I do not think have been moved. I give way to the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett), then I shall conclude.
      Mr. Bennett: Does the Minister realise that, as a result of fairly recent judgments, what Ministers say in the House can be taken into account by the courts? Will he go through the list in amendment No. 12 and tell us which activities he would expect not to be covered, so that it is on the record in the House that he thinks that proposed subsections (a) to (f) are covered by his definition?
      Mr. Maclean: The hon. Gentleman misunderstands the ruling in Pepper v. Hart, which suggested that the comments of Ministers may be taken into account if there is ambiguity. However, when a Bill states that something is black, it is no good a Minister saying that it is white. The court will still interpret the word as "black". We cannot use our words, however nimbly we put them across, to change the meaning of the Bill, if the meaning is crystal clear; nor can I make any comment at the Dispatch Box that would influence the way in which judges use the long-established rules of interpretation to interpret a list.
      The hon. Gentleman is trying to make bricks without straw. I understand his reasons. He has tabled all the Liberty amendments. It may be legitimate for him to take that position, but his amendments would pull the teeth of the Bill. There would be nothing left to give protection to victims. I do not go so far as to say that the amendment tabled by the official Opposition would fundamentally

      827
      destroy the Bill, as the hon. Gentleman's amendments would—there would be no Bill left. The Opposition amendment would narrow the scope of this part of the Bill to a narrowly defined list.
      Stalkers do not stick to the activities on a list. Stalkers and other weirdos who pursue women, cause racial harassment and annoy their neighbours have a wide range of activity which it is impossible to define. The result of our consultation exercise suggested overwhelmingly that the approach in the Bill is the best one. Therefore, I am not persuaded to fly in the face of the consultation exercise, the expert advice that we received and the views of victims of stalking, especially a victim who told us clearly:
      "If you have a list of activities which you ban, my stalker will simply sit down and work out another activity with which to torment me."
      For those reasons, and that one in particular, I cannot accept the amendment.
      Mrs. Fyfe: I have lost of count of the Government Bills that I have seen which began with the preamble that,
      "without prejudice to the generality"
      of a particular section, the following detailed provisions would apply. After his remarks to the Committee, will the Minister and his colleagues revise all the legislation that has been passed in the past umpteen years to remove such particulars? That is the logic of what he has said.
      If the Minster's objective is to avoid rendering judges obtuse or stupid in their interpretation of the legislation, I suggest that amendment No. 12 would help. A judge would not be able to say that following someone, loitering near them, telephoning them and making flattering remarks, or sending them presents, was not harassment. Even the thickest of those on judicial benches would regard such behaviour as harassment.
      Mr. Maclean: Looking down the list, I was immediately struck by its deficiency. For example—off the top of my head—it omits such activities as driving past a victim's house. That is not contained in the amendment, although loitering and watching are. What about the person who continually drives past someone's house, or harassment by direct speech, letters to the press, acts committed against a third party—such as the victim's spouse or children—or acts committed by a third party? Those examples are not covered. I have already provided half a dozen examples, and there may be others.
      I do not consider myself to be a weirdo—although others may disagree—so I have not thought of all the weird permutations of behaviour that could be used to get round a list. However, if hon. Members have already found deficiencies in the list, within hours of reading the amendments, we can bet our bottom dollar that stalkers out there somewhere would change and refine their activities to get round it.
      We should not be in any doubt that some activities, such as driving past a victim's house, is not caught by the amendment. Other activities may be caught, or they may not be. We should bear in mind that deterrence will be one of the best effects of the legislation. Police officers have said that their current difficulty is that they cannot tell a stalker, "Stop it, sonny, because you're breaking the
      828
      law." Stalkers know that certain actions do not necessarily break the law. The Bill's provisions will enable police to advise many people that, if they persist with their conduct, they will be breaking the law.
      "Harassment" catches a wide range of conduct and potentially allows such behaviour to be considered as breaking the law. A narrow list will enable police to tick off, reprimand and deter only those whose activities exactly match those on the list. It is not good enough to have grey areas or to say, "Driving past a victim's house may or may not be caught." A list system creates such ambiguity. Some conduct will be excluded directly, but other conduct will have an ambiguous status. That is my answer to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe).
      Mr. Bennett: I am disappointed by the Minister's response, because I thought that the purpose of the Bill's Committee stage was to try to achieve constructive results. I understand the difficulty that an offence will be extremely difficult to prove if, as my amendments propose, we say "knowingly" and remove "ought to know" because of the issue of intent. Equally, it is a pretty good principle in law that, so far as possible, we should make it clear to people that they are in danger of breaking the law. Therefore, we should be trying to achieve clarity. I understand that difficulty, and I appreciate the way in which the Minister has made the point that, as soon as we make a list, there will be a problem with people who deliberately try to get round it. I accept that.
      When I moved my amendment, I suggested to the Minister the development of a code of practice or regulations that would provide the necessary interpretation. I can also understand the difficulties with that approach, but I should have thought that he could at least provide the Committee with a firm list of such behaviour. As he said, a judge would not have to take specific notice of a list, but such a list would at least clearly express the Government's views.
      In the course of proceedings on the Bill, I hope that Ministers will make it clear that they accept the list in amendment No. 12. If the Minister or his advisers can think of other examples of such behaviour, they should be included—so that people are at least provided with some clarification of the law on which to base their conduct.
      I understand the Minister's argument that a police officer should be able to say, "Because of this general rule on harassment, that behaviour is covered." But, as the Minister has already pointed out, some of those people are extremely awkward, persistent and cussed, and they will not be deterred merely because a police officer says that a course of conduct is covered. They will be very tempted to pursue the matter through the courts. Such uncertainty will continue until there is a series of court judgments clarifying what is meant in the clause by "harassment" and what is meant by "reasonable".
      I appeal to the Minister to look again for some way in which to provide general guidance stating that the conduct listed in amendment No. 12 and the conduct that he mentioned are clearly examples of harassment. The guidance should make it clear that, if one persists with such activities, they will be caught by the clause, and it should not close the door on including those activities. I should have thought that the Minister could come up with guidance that is sufficiently inventive to meet the

      829
      need of clarifying the legislation, so that people are clear that certain activities will be treated as harassment and that others may also be so treated.
      I do not want to press my amendment to a vote, but I should have thought that—tomorrow, during the Bill's Report stage—many Opposition Members will want to return to the subject. Therefore, I ask the Minister to think whether guidance can be given, without, as he suggested might happen, narrowing the definition of the offence. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw amendment No. 1.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      The Second Deputy Chairman: Is amendment No. 12 to be moved formally?
      Ms Janet Anderson: Dame Janet, may I reply to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett)?
      The Second Deputy Chairman: Unfortunately, it is not possible to have further debate on that group of amendments as amendment No. 1 has been withdrawn. If the hon. Lady wishes to move amendment No. 12 formally, she may do so.
      Ms Anderson: No.
      Mrs. Maddock: I beg to move amendment No. 30, in page 1, line 15, leave out from 'shows' to 'under' in line 17 and insert,
      `that in the particular circumstances the pursuit of the course of conduct was reasonable—
      (a) for the purpose of preventing and detecting crime, or'.
      The Second Deputy Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 31, in page 1, line 19, leave out from 'enactment' to end of line 21.
      No. 28, in page 1, line 21, at end insert 'or
      (d) that it was pursued for the purpose of investigating a tort, suspected civil wrong or other matter, where a bona fide investigation is required in the interests of justice.'.
      No. 6, in clause 4, clause 4, page 2, line 41, leave out from 'reasonable' to end of line 43.
      Mrs. Maddock: Before the Minister replies to my speech and points out the flaws in my amendments, I should like to mention again the speed with which we had to draft them. I regret that, because of my speed in doing so, the amendments do not achieve what they were intended to do. They were intended to deal with the issue of "reasonableness", which has already been mentioned in the debate.
      In clauses 1 and 4, immunity from prosecution is provided to people if they can demonstrate that they were acting for purposes of preventing or detecting crime—as all hon. Members would think sensible. Obviously, in many circumstances, tailing a suspected criminal is justified, and my intention was not to interfere with that provision. However, the Bill's wording caused me to be concerned about whether it would allow people acting to prevent or detect crime to harass other people to an unacceptable or unreasonable degree. The Bill seems to contain no such qualification.
      830
      That issue has already been mentioned by the hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George), who spoke about private detectives engaging in such behaviour. Another example which has already been mentioned in the debate is bailiffs, who may find that they are able to harass people on the basis of subsections (a) and (b). I hope that the Minister will reassure us on that matter. He has already briefly spoken about the issue of "reasonableness". The amendments' purpose was to probe that issue and to seek reassurances from the Government that people are not able to claim that they are carrying out some other, legitimate purpose when they are, in fact, harassing other people.
      Mr. George: I shall speak to amendment No. 28, which is another probing amendment. I should like assurances from the Minister about the position of various people who conduct a range of legitimate investigations—they may be called private investigators, but other, more disparaging expressions, have also been used regularly. Their names do not always appear in the Yellow Pages as private investigators, but they frequently pursue investigations on behalf of the Crown—directly or indirectly—or on behalf of other organisations or individuals. I am not yet convinced—I hope to be convinced by the Minister—that sufficient thought has been given to provide the necessary defences for anyone pursuing a legitimate investigation.
      8.30 pm
      I tabled the amendment to allow the Minister to discuss with his civil servants the point that many private eyes undertake investigations with no criminal connotations. I mentioned earlier a list—I know that putting down a list is not conducive to gaining the Minister's support—of activities that are not directed to criminal investigations. The list includes investigating industrial accidents, matrimonial inquiries, the taking of statements, interviewing for witness statements, tracing missing persons and process serving.
      I have looked at a text book on private investigation written by a gentleman named Ackroyd. On page 104 of his book, "The Investigator", he says, on the subject of process serving:
      "To make what is termed a 'good service' it is only necessary to touch some part of the individual's body with the actual document."
      I wonder whether touching an individual with a document, even though it may be a copy of a document provided by a court, might be considered harassment, resulting in the bailiff, the process server or the investigator being called to the attention of the police.
      The list of activities that may not have criminal connotations also includes providing evidence for a local authority on anti-social neighbours, the vetting of potential and existing staff, and debt recovery. I hope to convince the Minister of the necessity of a stronger defence than that provided by the clause. The defence of an action in subsection (3)(a)—
      "that it was pursued for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime"—
      might appear fine, but the argument of what is reasonable is problematic.
      The Minister speaks with some knowledge on the private security industry, although his views may not always correspond to mine. He knows that some people

      831
      might say that certain activities of the private security industry were reasonable and others might consider the same activities definitely unreasonable. Whether many of the manifold duties of a private investigator were reasonable may have to be tested in court. A judge's definition of what was reasonable might be a matter of considerable controversy. It would be easier—I shall not go into detail on this—for professional private investigators to argue their case if their profession was regulated and they conformed to standards laid down by law. Being a licensed investigator would provide a greater defence for certain activities.
      Many, if not the majority, of the activities of private investigators are not related to criminal proceedings. The Bill is imprecise—indeed, confusing. Subsection (3)(c) might exempt investigators whose investigations were proved reasonable, but that is too vague and could lead to some legitimate investigators being subject to civil and perhaps even criminal action.
      I do not believe that that was the objective of the Home Office in drawing up the legislation. The consultation paper issued in July said:
      "There is a risk that if the scope of any new legislation to deal with stalking is not carefully defined"—
      I do not think that it has been—
      "it will criminalise the everyday behaviour of innocent people".
      I do not want to argue about whether the definition is too wide or too narrow. I shall say only that when I was in the academic profession I often set the same examination question, asking students to consider a statement such as, "Legislation is more the function of the Executive than of the legislature." If I were pitched once again—against my will—into the profession that I willingly left, I might have to revise that statement to, "Legislation is as much the function of the judiciary as of the legislature." The broad definition bestows an enormous responsibility on the courts to do what we are unwilling or unable to do.
      I have said that we need clarification on what is reasonable for private investigators. Obviously, investigators want to know whether it would be reasonable to pursue a party suspected of making a fraudulent personal injury insurance claim. They would want to know at the outset whether the suspicion was justified. The only way to establish the truth would be to keep the individual under surveillance.
      In a second example, investigators might also justifiably want to know whether it would be considered reasonable to keep surveillance on an individual suspected by his employer of working for a third party or on a freelance basis. The investigator would not know the truth until the observations had been completed.
      In a third example, investigators might also want to know whether it would be reasonable to keep observations on an estranged spouse who was claiming maintenance on the premise that she was not cohabiting with a third party or was not in gainful employment. The investigator would not know whether the maintenance claim was justified without establishing whether the estranged spouse was cohabiting or was employed.
      A fourth problem is whether it would be considered reasonable to keep observations on a person to be able to serve that individual with some form of legal process such
      832
      as a High Court writ or an injunction. Occasionally, it would be necessary to stake out a person's residence to effect service of legal documents when the subject was evasive.
      Many other examples that occur daily in the lives of investigators have arisen from my consultations. Without the ability to keep people and their homes under surveillance, it will not be possible to establish the truth in a case.
      Investigators frequently act in legal aid cases when the Legal Aid Board is seeking the recovery of money from litigants. Unless investigators have exemptions from the Bill, they will be unable to fulfil effectively the assignments given to them by the courts, inevitably inhibiting the ability of the Legal Aid Board to recover outstanding costs.
      Virtually all surveillance activities by private investigators are of a covert nature. As long as the surveillance is legitimate, one hopes that the target does not know that it has taken place until it has been concluded and a report appears before them or the person who hired the investigator.
      However, that cannot always happen. Sometimes the subject becomes aware of the surveillance. In such cases, the surveillance is discontinued or postponed until the target's fears have been allayed. It is important to clarify how the Bill will affect private investigators conducting legitimate investigations on behalf of their clients.

      It is principally the legitimate investigator who has a problem with the measure, not the criminal element in the profession, which will not be deterred by new laws. I am assured that legitimate investigators are anxious to work within the law. However, if the Bill is passed without clarification of clause 1(3)(c) or adequate assurances from the Minister, it will be regarded as confusing and damaging by legitimate investigators who do a good job within the law.
      Good, legal investigators, hon. Members and the overwhelming majority of public opinion support the principle of the Bill and applaud any measure that deters stalkers and protects the innocent from harassment. However, in the interests of justice, there must be some provision to protect legitimate investigators conducting bona fide inquiries from prosecution and civil action. I am not trying to destroy the Bill's intention and I hope that I can get assurances. In those circumstances, I would freely withdraw my amendment.
      Mr. Bennett: My amendment No. 6 is in this group. As the Minister is keen to keep the Bill as general as possible to catch all forms of possible harassment, why cannot he keep the possible defence equally general under clause 4(3)(c)? It seems much better to have
      "the pursuit of his course of conduct was reasonable"
      than to qualify it as he has done.
      Mr. Maclean: Amendments Nos. 30 and 31 are unacceptable. They would prevent any activity that is not carried on reasonably for the prevention or detection of crime or under any enactment. Many activities, such as journalism, doorstep selling and political canvassing, may cause harassment but are legitimate if undertaken reasonably. We proposed in our consultation paper, which was published in the summer, that such activities should

      833
      be protected, and the response was overwhelming agreement. The Bill recognises that and safeguards those activities by providing a defence for any activities that, in the particular circumstances, were reasonable. The amendments would do away with that safeguard and make illegal all sorts of legitimate activities, which would make the scope of the Bill far too wide. That is why we cannot accept the amendments.
      8.45 pm
      I listened closely to the hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George), and I have considered amendment No. 28 carefully. The civil law relates to disputes between two parties; there is no question of public policy being involved. When investigators are examining a matter of tort, it would be wrong to give either party to a dispute special privileges under the criminal law. The amendment does not wreck the Bill but it is unnecessary. If the action of a party to a dispute is reasonable, it will be covered by the general defence provided in clause 1(3)(c):
      "that in the particular circumstances the pursuit of the course of conduct was reasonable."
      That would apply to whole categories of people, such as journalists, politicians, doorstep sellers and people who canvass on religious matters. It would certainly cover, in the legitimate course of conduct, the activities of private investigators and security guards. It comes down to whether someone's activity is reasonable.
      Furthermore, someone must claim that they have been harassed. Many of the activities of private investigators mentioned by the hon. Member for Walsall, South involved the person under investigation being unaware of the presence of the private investigator. That person could not fear alarm or distress; there is no harassment and no need for a defence. Only if a person under investigation became aware of being followed, or claimed that he was being stalked, and it happened a second time and the person tried to take action, would it be for a court to decide whether the activities of the private investigator were reasonable.
      I cannot give precise examples—the hon. Gentleman quoted many—but it would always depend on the facts of the case: how the private investigator went about the activity that is challenged in court. As so many activities could be undertaken and challenged, I cannot give examples of whether one activity was reasonable and another not; it would depend on the actions of the person concerned and the effect that they had on the victim.
      Clause 1(3)(c) is adequate for all those involved in legitimate crime prevention activity, such as private investigators or private security personnel; that would also apply to all other people. On Second Reading, we discussed whether it would be legitimate conduct for a Member of Parliament to badger an organisation to get an answer for a constituent. If constituents tried to solve problems, could they badger someone? Of course they could. If someone tried to claim that such a constituent's activity was unreasonable, it would be for a court, if it ever came to it, to decide whether the behaviour involved in an attempt to badger an organisation for an answer—or get something fixed, or goods delivered on time or services provided—was reasonable.
      Amendment No. 6 would provide a general defence to the offence of pursuing a course of conduct that causes another to fear violence. The Bill already provides
      834
      defences to that offence where the conduct of the person was: for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime; under any enactment or rule of law; or reasonable for the protection of himself or another or for the protection of his or another's property. The amendment would extend the defences to any circumstances in which the conduct was reasonable. That cannot be accepted.
      The similar general defence of acting reasonably in the case of the lower-level offence of causing harassment has been provided in recognition of activities such as journalism and political proselytising, which may cause harassment but are legitimate and should be protected. That consideration does not apply to the higher-level offence of causing fear of violence. It is clearly not reasonable to put someone in fear of violence through doorstep selling or religious or political proselytising. We should keep that defence for exceptional circumstances, and those circumstances are clearly set out in the Bill. For the reasons that I have given, I hope that hon. Members will withdraw their amendments.
      Mrs. Maddock: I accept from the way in which the Minister gently rejected my amendments, given the vigour with which he has rejected others, that he understood my points. I listened carefully to his remarks about what constitutes reasonable conduct. I hope that his reassurances are right. I suspect that questions about what is reasonable conduct will be raised again in another place. In view of his comments, and of the time, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
      Mr. Bennett: I have some doubt about the words "A person" at the very beginning of the clause. On Second Reading, the Government were keen to suggest that the Bill covered harassment not only by individuals but by groups. Opposition Members were especially concerned about racial harassment, in which a group of people could be either actively or passively involved. Can the Minister explain how the phrase "A person" covers activities, such as racial harassment or families warring with their neighbours, for which groups are responsible? Should not we perhaps use a phrase such as "a group of persons acting with common intent"?
      Mr. Maclean: We believe that the wording is adequate to deal with those cases in which individuals may be harassing someone, perhaps for racial motives. It is best to leave the wording "A person", bearing in mind that the majority of the classic stalking problems that we are dealing with involve individuals. Even in neighbour disputes, with families involved, and in racial harassment, it should be possible to identify the one individual, or the various individuals in the group, who are causing the problems.
      I do not know of any instances in which courts convict people in groups. Even if half a dozen people are engaged in a robbery, murder or other crime, they must be served with a summons, charged and sentenced individually; and often they get different sentences. In those circumstances, the language in the Bill is adequate to catch the bulk of

      835
      individual, targeted, classic stalking activity, and should also catch those who may be involved in neighbour disruption or racial harassment.
      Mr. Bennett: That answer is helpful, but does not fulfil the promise that was made on Second Reading. As I understand it, if a family is causing trouble to the next-door neighbours, it is not sufficient to serve the head of the household with an order; each individual has to be named.
      Mr. Maclean: I can see no difficulty in that whatever. It would be justice, because if a family generally is causing trouble, one member of that family may not be involved. It would not be acceptable in British law—and certainly not in the European Court of Human Rights—to tarnish or convict a whole family, when individuals in it are innocent of the charge. If one did that, why stop at this law? To take the idea to extremes, why not convict whole families of murder, robbery or drug dealing when one member or a few members of it are involved?
      Mr. Streeter: We could put that in the manifesto.
      Mr. Maclean: My hon. Friend is tempting me into a commitment. If I had the prison places, I might consider it.
      Seriously, though, what the hon. Gentleman is suggesting is not necessary; the provisions in the Bill catch the activity to which he refers. If we want to deal with half a dozen people in a family who are causing trouble, we have to get the individuals by name; we have to do that in any case to get any conviction under any rule of law of which I am aware.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 2

      OFFENCE OF HARASSMENT
      Mr. Bennett: I beg to move amendment No. 2, in page 1, line 24, leave out 'summary'.
      The Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 3, in page 1, line 25, after `conviction', insert 'on indictment'.
      Mr. Bennett: I realise that the Government want to differentiate between clauses l and 2 and clauses 3 and 4, but would not the decision on what is harassment and what is reasonable be far better taken by a jury than merely by magistrates?
      Mr. Kirkhope: I am somewhat puzzled by the amendments. The effect would be to require the person charged with the offence of harassment to be tried in the Crown court rather than the magistrates court. I am puzzled because the amendment does not propose any corresponding increase in penalty. The penalty set out in the Bill—a six-month sentence of imprisonment or a level 5 fine, or both—is the maximum penalty available for any offence tried in the magistrates court. It would be an
      836
      unjustifiable waste of resources to deal in the Crown court with an offence that attracted those penalties. It would also create unnecessary delays.
      The amendments also run contrary to the general thrust of the past 20 years or so to find ways of ensuring that cases which can be dealt with in the magistrates court are retained there. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not trying to attack the excellent justice meted out by our magistrates courts. The pressure of time and the delays in the Crown court, as well as the much higher costs attendant on trials there, also militate against what he suggests. I can find no other reason for his suggesting the changes.
      As the royal commission specifically recognised, if more business is retained in the magistrates court, more resources can be devoted to ensuring that the more serious cases going to the Crown court are better prepared and more quickly heard. It is in no one's interest to increase unnecessarily the number of cases sent for trial to the Crown court. In those circumstances, I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.
      Mr. Bennett: If someone's reputation is at stake and rests on the question of what is harassment and what is reasonable, there is a much greater safeguard in being able to put a case for the defence to a jury rather than to magistrates, many of whom, perhaps as a result of their jobs, become somewhat case-hardened. However, I realise that the Committee wants to make progress, and on that basis I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Mr. Kirkhope: I beg to move amendment No. 42, in page 2, leave out lines 1 and 2 and insert—
      '(3) In section 24(2) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (arrestable offences), after paragraph (m) there is inserted—
      "(n) an offence under section 2 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 (harassment)."'.
      The amendment replaces the power of arrest provision in the Bill with somewhat stronger provisions which accrue to offences that are arrestable under the provisions of section 24 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.
      I am persuaded that the additional powers are needed for the police to deal effectively with stalkers. The power under section 18 of the 1984 Act for the police to search for evidence is particularly relevant and necessary if the menace of stalking is to be tackled effectively.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Clause 2, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 3

      CIVIL REMEDY
      Mrs. Maddock: I beg to move amendment No. 33, in page 2, line 6, after 'claim', insert 'for an actual breach.'
      The purpose of the amendment is to make explicit what we believe is the Government's intention anyway—that damages are not awardable where there has been only an apprehended breach but no actual breach of section 1. I seek reassurance from the Government.
      Mr. Streeter: I am afraid that I am unable to give the hon. Lady the assurance she seeks, because, if the

      837
      amendment were accepted, it might be thought that damages claims should be limited to cases in which harassment had actually occurred. On the face of it, it is not easy to see how it could be claimed that damages should be awarded for something that has not—or at least not yet—happened. Part of our problem is that we are trying to legislate for a wide range of behaviour. It is conceivable, for example, that even the anticipation of harassment could, in particularly vulnerable people, cause anxiety or loss. A situation may build up over a period of time and be about to reach boiling point.
      The Government would prefer to leave it to the courts to decide in the individual case whether the award of damages was appropriate. The courts are very good at considering specific circumstances and tailoring the order to meet a particular set of facts. The courts' existing powers enable that to happen effectively. Before the court awards damages, it must first be persuaded that the victim has—under this legislation—suffered anxiety or loss. The court will not award damages unless it is persuaded on the evidence that that has happened. A defendant who feels that the court's judgment in that regard is wrong may, of course, appeal against the judgment.
      Although the Government recognise the point that the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mrs. Maddock) is trying to make in the amendment, we think that the courts' existing powers cover the point adequately and that the amendment is therefore unnecessary.
      Mrs. Maddock: In view of the Minister's comments, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      9 pm
      Mr. George Howarth: I beg to move amendment No. 13, in page 2, line 8, at end insert—
      '(2A) In proceedings under this section a court may, if it appears just and appropriate to do so, order that the person who has been found to have pursued the course of conduct amounting to harassment, to attend a course of counselling with a named person or organisation for the purpose of persuading him not to harass the victim or any other person in the future.'.
      The Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also the following amendments: No. 15, in clause 5, page 3, line 21, at end insert—
      '(2A) The order may, for the purpose of persuading the defendant not to pursue a course of conduct likely to cause harassment to the victim of the offence or any other person in the future, provide that the defendant attend a course of counselling with a named person or organisation.'.
      No. 16, in clause 5, page 3, line 26, after 'defendant', insert
      'fails to do anything which he has been ordered to do or'.
      No. 24, in clause 8, clause 8, page 4, line 36, at end insert—
      `(c) grant an order, if it appears just and appropriate to do so, requiring the defender to attend a course of counselling with a named person or organisation for the purpose of persuading him not to harass the pursuer or any other person in the future'.
      No. 26, in clause 11, clause 11, page 6, line 41, at end insert—
      '(6A) A non-harassment order may, for the purpose of persuading the defendant not to pursue a course of conduct likely to cause harassment to the victim of the offence or any other person in the future, provide that the offender attend a course of counselling with a named person or organisation'.
      838
      No. 19, in clause 14, clause 14, page 7, line 13, at beginning insert
      'Subject to subsection (2A) below,'.
      No. 20, in clause 14, page 7, line 15, at beginning insert
      `Subject to subsection (2A) below,'.
      No. 21, in clause 14, page 7, line 16, at end insert—
      '(2A) The Secretary of State or, as the case may be, the Lord Chancellor, may provide that section 3(2A) or section 5(2A) shall come into force in different areas of England and Wales in different ways.'.
      Mr. Howarth: Amendment No. 13 and those associated with it cover the issue of counselling for those who are convicted of stalking or harassment in one form or another.
      I should make it clear what the Opposition mean by counselling. We mean not some pleasant chat over a cup of tea between the perpetrator and some qualified counsellor, but the sort of counselling that forces offenders to face up to their offending behaviour, the effects that it has had and what its consequences can be. I will cite some examples of what I mean by that later.
      The amendments are basically permissive; they give the courts the option to rule as part of an order or sentence that some form of counselling will take place. At present, the civil courts have no such power and the amendments provide a constructive remedy, especially in "sad cases" where a criminal conviction may be inappropriate.
      The Government's definition of harassment, as set out in clause 1, says that what the defendant
      "knows or ought to know amounts to harassment".
      It is therefore clear that the defendant, even once convicted, may genuinely believe that his or her behaviour was quite reasonable.
      Amazing though that may seem to reasonable people such as hon. Members, there are circumstances in which people simply do not realise that what they have done is wrong. That attitude is typical of those who commit offences that are directed toward another person—a good example being a rapist, who will cite the fact that the victim was "provocatively dressed" or that the victim said no, but really meant yes. Even more bizarre to many of us, but which happens, is the child abuser who argues that they were led on by the child.
      All of us know, because we are reasonable and coherent people, that such statements are neither sufficient excuses nor reasonable explanations for such behaviour. The truth, with which the Prison Service has had to come to terms, is that people often delude themselves into believing that an incident was not their fault. The point of programmes which are already very successful in some prisons is that they remove any reason for people to continue with the self-delusion that they were in some way not responsible for the actions that they perpetrated. By introducing the concept of counselling into the Bill, we hope that those who have committed an offence will have to address the root causes of the problems that they have created by the nature of their behaviour. That, simply, is what we seek to do.
      Of course, there will also be stalkers who are well aware of the impact of their behaviour on victims. They, too, should be forced to confront their offending behaviour. Merely placing restrictive orders on them may or may not be sufficient to remedy the problem.

      839
      If the Minister can give me assurances that our concerns can be taken into account, and that remedies along the lines that I have described will be available, we may reconsider our position. None the less, at this stage I want to register the fact that we regard this matter as vital, and that I shall probably wish to press it to a Division.
      There are many examples of stalkers convicted of offences such as breaches of the peace, or making nuisance telephone calls, who learn to restrict their behaviour and keep just within the law. That is a worrying phenomenon, and the Bill as presently constructed may allow such people to slip through the net.
      The most effective way to stop harassment is to remove the root cause. A stalker who has been forced to address his own offending behaviour and no longer wishes to harass the victim is far less of a threat than one whose only motive in not committing further offences is the fear of legal retribution, important though that is. We owe it to the victims of harassment to ensure that stalkers are forced to confront their behaviour, and that an order imposed by the court can make them undertake such activity.
      There are many examples. I shall not labour them, because all the cases have been mentioned in earlier debates, but they all help to make the case. Vanessa Kennedy, a resident of Lewisham, was subjected to an eight-year ordeal that she describes as psychological torture. She lives in fear of a man who has forced her to change her identity, has destroyed her family and driven her to move house. Vanessa Kennedy has attempted suicide four times, and claims that the perpetrator, Laurence Hammond, threatened to cut her into pieces and make her pay for rejecting him. He would describe in detail how he would torture her and other women, and the images still live in her nightmares. That man has never been forced to address the impact of his offending. Clearly, if the Bill allowed such things to continue without redress, it would not be adequate.
      Secondly, I cite the case of Dennis Chambers, which has already been mentioned. The case came to trial earlier this year, and the defendant was acquitted when a jury was not convinced that he had caused "serious or really serious" psychological harm to Margaret Bent. The court was told that he had waited outside her home with a machete on two occasions, and had barricaded her into her office. Chambers admitted to the police that he had registered his car in Miss Bent's name and ensured that she received a string of parking tickets, followed by summonses and visits by bailiffs threatening to seize her property if fines went unpaid. He also admitted kicking her office door open, but denied that that amounted to affray. He said that it was
      "a mere act of instinctive criminal damage".
      The drip, drip, drip effect of those incidents was not sufficient to achieve a criminal conviction, so there have been no consequences for that man. He has not been forced to face up to his offending behaviour.
      The Government may say that proposals to force stalkers to confront their offending behaviour are uncosted
      840
      and may prove expensive. However, the section of the explanatory and financial memorandum headed "Financial Effects of the Bill", says:
      "It is anticipated that approximately 200 extra criminal cases a year will arise".
      We do not propose that every one, even of that small number of people, would be compelled to have counselling, so very few cases would be involved.
      Amendment No. 21 would provide for counselling to be piloted, so any cost implications could be closely monitored, and would be extremely limited in scope. Moreover, the purpose of counselling would be to prevent further offending, and could therefore reduce future legal costs.
      Amendment No. 15 provides the criminal court with the power to order offenders to undergo counselling on conviction. Although magistrates courts can theoretically issue similar orders already, it does us no harm to reiterate the point. The clause also reflects the wording of amendment No. 13. There are examples of cases that highlight the benefit of making stalkers address their offending behaviour, such as the case of Anthony Burstow, who, in March 1996, was jailed for three years for inflicting psychological grievous bodily harm following a three-year hate campaign against a former colleague, Tracey Sant.
      The harassment began when Miss Sant decided to end their friendship, but Mr. Burstow refused to accept that. His activities included sending her a soiled sanitary towel, stealing her underwear from a washing line, pouring solvent over her car and writing her sinister notes. This was the first case in which a stalker was convicted of grievous bodily harm, but it took five days of tortuous legal wrangling before the court was able to reach a decision.
      A similar example is Perry Southall of east London, who was subjected to an eight-month campaign—involving more than 200 separate incidents—by convicted rapist Clarence Morris, until his conviction in September of this year. Morris was finally convicted of two assault charges after a case in which his barrister, David Stanton, said:
      "Is it fair that a young lady who dresses to attract, the queen bee attracting the drones, the queen bee that dresses to kill … cries foul because somebody finds her attractive?"
      I think that we would all take issue with that statement. In response to that case, the Home Secretary promised that the proposed Bill
      "would have the effect of providing proper safeguards against stalking."
      It is difficult to envisage how those proper safeguards against further stalking can be provided without making some effort to prevent the root causes of the offence.
      I will not detain the Committee with a description of the remaining amendments, which are consequential and follow the same line of argument. Although the Bill starts to provide some remedies, unless and until the unacceptable attitudes that people use to justify some appalling behaviour—mainly towards women—are confronted, and until the offenders are counselled and

      841
      forced to confront their offending behaviour and the faults in their approach to other people, the root causes of some of the problems will not be adequately dealt with. This is an important issue and an important principle, and it is one that I hope the Committee will accept if it conies to a vote. We must make sure that the root causes of offensive behaviour are tackled properly by making provision within the Bill for counselling to take place on a statutory basis.
      Mr. Streeter: I am afraid that the Government cannot accept the amendment. There is an element of confusion in the mind of the hon. Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth), although I recognise that he has tabled the amendment for the best possible motives. He is seeking to give a civil court the ability to grant an order for counselling, but all the examples that he provided would almost certainly be dealt with by the criminal courts when the Bill becomes an Act. The Bill has been introduced to deal with cases such as the Kennedy case, the Chambers case, the Burstow case and the Perry Southall case. They would be criminal cases, and the criminal courts have a full panoply of powers available to them to deal with the very points that the hon. Gentleman has raised.
      Amendments Nos. 13 and 24—which seek to empower the civil courts, when making an order under either clause 3 or clause 8, to order that a defendant receives counselling—are not acceptable for the following three clear reasons.
      First, the purpose of the civil remedy is to enable a victim to obtain protection from harassment or anticipated harassment, not to provide a forum for determining appropriate treatment for the defendant. A civil court is not normally expected to make what amounts to a treatment order. Such an order is analogous to a punishment order and is not really appropriate for a civil court.
      Mr. Bennett: Does the Minister not recognise that he is pushing the Bill that bit further to deal with neighbour disputes where harassment is involved? Surely there is a role for counselling when two neighbours are at war with each other and each is probably harassing the other? In such cases, can the Minister not see the advantages of the court being able to tell the parties involved to sit down and talk sensibly to someone who can persuade them that continuing that line of behaviour will not only be illegal, but damaging to themselves and to their neighbours?
      9.15 pm
      Mr. Streeter: The hon. Gentleman knows that a panoply of provision, including counselling, is already available in the multi-agency approach that tends to be taken in respect of such matters these days. Social services might well already be involved in disputes such as he describes, and therefore counselling would be available. Under the existing arrangements, if a court dealing with such a case was persuaded that an undertaking from a defendant to attend a course of counselling was sufficient protection for the victim, either in itself or in addition to other forms of protection, the court could consider that undertaking in deciding what order to make.
      We must recognise that it would be a major departure to empower civil courts in the way that is suggested in the amendment. Even if we were minded to accept that
      842
      civil courts should have the ability to make a treatment order, that order should not be limited to counselling, but should include the full range of provision currently available under the criminal jurisdiction. Singling out counselling, which is only one of a wide range of matters which might feature in a civil court's order, is unhelpful.
      Amendment No. 15 and its Scottish equivalent, amendment No. 26, are also unnecessary. Whereas the previous amendments are intended to confer powers on civil courts to direct that a person receives counselling, these amendments would give such powers to criminal courts. However, that adds nothing to the powers of the courts—either under existing law or as provided in the Crime (Sentences) Bill—to order medical treatment that is likely to be effective in addressing offending behaviour. Courts already have extensive powers under the Mental Health Act 1984 and the Criminal Justice Acts to make hospital orders or to attach conditions of treatment, including therapy by a psychologist, to probation orders. Again, isolating counselling among the wide range of matters which might feature in a restraining order is unhelpful.
      With regard to amendment No. 16, the purpose of a restraining order is to set out clearly those activities which are prohibited, and that is the extent to which we consider that restraining orders should go. In addition, to require a person to do certain things is out of keeping with an order which carries a strict liability offence, carrying a maximum penalty of five years imprisonment. I presume that amendment No. 16 is consequential on amendment No. 15 and that it is intended to ensure that a convicted stalker abides by the terms of any order requiring counselling to take place. As I have said, I consider amendment No. 15 to be misguided, and it follows that amendment No. 16 should fall with it.
      Amendments Nos. 19 to 21 are consequential on amendments Nos. 13 and 15. I ask that Opposition Members should not press them, or the amendments to which I have just spoken.
      Mr. George Howarth: I listened carefully to the Minister's remarks. In the conclusion to my opening speech, I said that we considered this to be an issue of principle. Through the availability of counselling, we seek to nip in the bud, in many instances, a sequence of events which might lead to a serious court case and possibly a prison sentence. We want to be able to move in swiftly and deal with the problem at an early stage so that it does not go too far.
      The second part of our argument is that there is strong evidence that in cases such as those that we are discussing today people who somehow delude themselves into believing that their behaviour is acceptable and not beyond the bounds of reason should be forced to confront their offending behaviour.
      The Committee needs to send out a powerful message which builds on the Bill's provisions. That message should be that, at the earliest possible stage, and on all subsequent occasions, offending behaviour will be confronted, and, if necessary, that that will be done on a statutory basis. I would feel more comfortable if that were a statutory provision in the Bill. I therefore urge my hon. Friends and others to join us in the Lobby to put it there.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The Committee divided: Ayes 179, Noes 172.

      Division No. 32]

      [9.19 pm

      AYES

      Adams, Mrs Irene

      Hill, Keith (Streatham)

      Ainger, Nick

      Hodge, Ms Margaret

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Hoey, Kate

      Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

      Home Robertson, John

      Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

      Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)

      Armstrong, Ms Hilary

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

      Austin-Walker, John

      Howells, Dr Kim

      Barnes, Harry

      Hoyle, Doug

      Battle, John

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Beith, A J

      Hutton, John

      Bennett, Andrew F

      Illsley, Eric

      Benton, Joe

      Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampst'd)

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Jamieson, David

      Berry, Roger

      Jenkins, Brian D (SE Staffs)

      Betts, Clive

      Jones, Barry (Alyn & D'side)

      Boateng, Paul

      Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

      Bradley, Keith

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd SW)

      Bray, Dr Jeremy

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

      Jowell, Ms Tessa

      Burden, Richard

      Keen, Alan

      Byers, Stephen

      Kennedy, Charles (Ross C & S)

      Callaghan, Jim

      Kennedy, Mrs Jane (Broadgreen)

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Khabra, Piara S

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Campbell-Savours, D N

      Liddell, Mrs Helen

      Cann, Jamie

      Litherland, Robert

      Chidgey, David

      Livingstone, Ken

      Chisholm, Malcolm

      Lloyd, Tony (Stretf'd)

      Clapham, Michael

      Loyden, Eddie

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      Lynne, Ms Liz

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      McAllion, John

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Cohen, Harry

      Macdonald, Calum

      Connarty, Michael

      McFall, John

      Cox, Tom

      McKelvey, William

      Cummings, John

      McLeish, Henry

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      McMaster, Gordon

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try SE)

      McNamara, Kevin

      Dafis, Cynog

      MacShane, Denis

      Dalyell, Tam

      McWilliam, John

      Darling, Alistair

      Madden, Max

      Davidson, Ian

      Maddock, Mrs Diana

      Davies, Bryan (Oldham C)

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Davies, Chris (Littleborough)

      Mandelson, Peter

      Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Denham, John

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Dixon, Don

      Martin, Michael J (Springburn)

      Dobson, Frank

      Maxton, John

      Donohoe, Brian H

      Michael, Alun

      Eastham, Ken

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)

      Ennis, Jeffrey

      Milburn, Alan

      Etherington, Bill

      Miller, Andrew

      Evans, John (St Helens N)

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Faulds, Andrew

      Morley, Elliot

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

      Fisher, Mark

      Morris, John (Aberavon)

      Flynn, Paul

      Mudie, George

      Foster, Derek

      Mullin, Chris

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Nicholson, Miss Emma (W Devon)

      Foulkes, George

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Fyfe, Mrs Maria

      O'Brien, William (Normanton)

      Galbraith, Sam

      O'Hara, Edward

      Gapes, Mike

      Olner, Bill

      George, Bruce

      O'Neill, Martin

      Gerrard, Neil

      Pearson, Ian

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Pickthall, Colin

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Pike, Peter L

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Prentice, Mrs B (Lewisham E)

      Grocott, Bruce

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Gunnell, John

      Primarolo, Ms Dawn

      Hall, Mike

      Purchase, Ken

      Harvey, Nick

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      844

      Raynsford, Nick

      Timms, Stephen

      Rendel, David

      Tipping, Paddy

      Robertson, George (Hamilton)

      Turner, Dennis

      Rooker, Jeff

      Tyler, Paul

      Rooney, Terry

      Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Watson, Mike

      Ruddock, Ms Joan

      Welsh, Andrew

      Simpson, Alan

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Skinner, Dennis

      Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

      Smith Andrew (Oxford E)

      Wilson, Brian

      Winnick, David

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Wise, Mrs Audrey

      Soley, Clive

      Worthington, Tony

      Spearing, Nigel

      Wray, Jimmy

      Squire, Ms R (Dunfermline W)

      Wright, Dr Tony

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Ms Angela Eagle and

      Thurnham, Peter

      Mr. Greg Pope.

      NOES

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

      Alison, Michael (Selby)

      Freeman, Roger

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      French, Douglas

      Ashby, David

      Fry, Sir Peter

      Atkins, Robert

      Gallie, Phil

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      Baldry, Tony

      Garnier, Edward

      Banks, Matthew (Southport)

      Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

      Bates, Michael

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Beggs, Roy

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Bellingham, Henry

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Bendall, Vivian

      Grylls, Sir Michael

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Gummer, John

      Booth, Hartley

      Hague, William

      Boswell, Tim

      Hamilton, Sir Archibald

      Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

      Harris, David

      Bowis, John

      Hawkins, Nick

      Brandreth, Gyles

      Hawksley, Warren

      Brazier, Julian

      Heald, Oliver

      Bright, Sir Graham

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Hendry, Charles

      Burt, Alistair

      Hill, Sir James (Southampton Test)

      Butcher, John

      Horam, John

      Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Linc'n)

      Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

      Carrington, Matthew

      Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

      Carttiss, Michael

      Hunt, David (Wirral W)

      Chapman, Sir Sydney

      Jack, Michael

      Coe, Sebastian

      Jenkin, Bernard (Colchester N)

      Congdon, David

      Jessel, Toby

      Conway, Derek

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F)

      Jones, Robert B (W Herts)

      Cope, Sir John

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Cran, James

      Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

      Davies, Quentin (Stamf'd)

      Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Knox, Sir David

      Deva, Nirj Joseph

      Kynoch, George

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Lawrence, Sir Ivan

      Dover, Den

      Leigh, Edward

      Duncan, Alan

      Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

      Duncan Smith, Iain

      Lidington, David

      Durant, Sir Anthony

      Lloyd, Sir Peter (Fareham)

      Dykes, Hugh

      Luff, Peter

      Eggar, Tim

      Lyell, Sir Nicholas

      Elletson, Harold

      MacKay, Andrew

      Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

      Maclean, David

      Evans, Nigel (Ribble V)

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Evennett, David

      Maitland, Lady Olga

      Fabricant, Michael

      Malone, Gerald

      Fenner, Dame Peggy

      Mans, Keith

      Fishburn, Dudley

      Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

      Forman, Nigel

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

      Mawhinney, Dr Brian

      Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)

      Merchant, Piers

      Forth, Eric

      Mills, Iain

      845

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Spink, Dr Robert

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Sproat, Iain

      Nelson, Anthony

      Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

      Neubert, Sir Michael

      Stanley, Sir John

      Newton, Tony

      Stephen, Michael

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Streeter, Gary

      Norris, Steve

      Sumberg, David

      Onslow, Sir Cranley

      Sweeney, Walter

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Ottaway, Richard

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Page, Richard

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Paice, James

      Thomason, Roy

      Patnick, Sir Irvine

      Thompson, Sir Donald (Calder V)

      Pawsey, James

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Pickles, Eric

      Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

      Porter, David

      Trotter, Neville

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Redwood, John

      Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

      Renton, Tim

      Waller, Gary

      Richards, Rod

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Roberts, Sir Wyn

      Waterson, Nigel

      Robertson, Raymond S (Ab'd'n S)

      Watts, John

      Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

      Wheeler, Sir John

      Ross, William (E Lond'y)

      Whitney, Ray

      Rumbold, Dame Angela

      Whittingdale, John

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Willetts, David

      Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Shepherd, Sir Colin (Heref'd)

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesf'ld)

      Shersby, Sir Michael

      Wood, Timothy

      Sims, Sir Roger

      Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Spicer, Sir Jim (W Dorset)

      Mr. Roger Knapman and

      Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)

      Mr. Bowen Wells.

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Ms Janet Anderson: I beg to move amendment No. 14, in page 2, line 8, at end insert—
      '(2B) In considering whether to order an injunction in proceedings under this section, a court shall have primary regard to whether such an order is necessary for the protection of what the court considers are the victim's legitimate interests.'.
      The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael Morris): With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 29, in page 2, line 8, at end insert—
      '(2A) Civil proceedings which include a claim under this section for an injunction shall not be referred to arbitration (whether under section 64 of the County Courts Act 1984, or otherwise) without the consent of all the parties to the action.'.
      No. 4, in page 2, leave out lines 9 to 24.
      No. 25, in clause 8, page 4, line 36, at end insert—
      '(5B) In considering whether to order an interdict or interim interdict in proceedings under this section, a court shall have primary regard to whether such an order is necessary for the protection of what the court considers are the pursuer's legitimate interests'.
      Ms Anderson: Amendment No. 14 would make the test for whether to issue an injunction under civil proceedings as favourable as realistically possible to the victim. It would make it more likely that county court judges would issue civil injunctions in strong prima facie cases of harassment. The Bill seeks to provide a remedy against behaviour that would often otherwise be considered lawful—for example, using the postal system, the public highway, or the telephone would be rendered a civil or criminal offence under the Bill by the effect on the victim. [Interruption.] At present, when deciding whether to issue injunctions, the
      846
      courts are naturally inclined to attach too much weight to potential interference with a harasser's civil liberties. [Interruption.]
      The Chairman: Order. I apologise for interrupting the hon. Lady. I ask those hon. Members who wish to take part in the Committee to listen to the proceedings, and those hon. Members who wish to talk about other matters to do so outside the Chamber.
      Ms Anderson: The amendment would guide a court to consider primarily the victim's point of view during its deliberations. We believe that that is particularly appropriate under this legislation, because a typical injunction would involve only a small interference with the harasser's civil liberties but would serve to set a victim's mind at rest as well as protect the victim from potential future harassment.
      The amendment would mean that, for example, when a person goes to court seeking an injunction and the court thinks that, on the balance of probability, the case is pretty 50:50 as to whether an order should be granted, the court should find in favour of the alleged victim and grant the injunction. The amendment's test of considering a victim's legitimate interest was approved by the Court of Appeal, which included the Master of the Rolls, in the judgment handed down in the Burris v. Azadani stalking case in July 1995. If the amendment were passed, we believe that the judgment in that case would provide excellent guidance for judges hearing similar applications for injunctions under the Act.
      Mr. A. J. Beith: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. I seek your help. In view of the way in which the Bill is being proceeded with, there may not be an interval between the Committee and Report stages. I am slightly concerned that, following their recent defeat, the Government might decide to introduce an amendment on Report to reverse our decision this evening. Can you afford some facility to Ministers, who appear to be consulting busily with each other and with civil servants, so that they may give notice to the Committee if they intend to move on Report an amendment—which will probably have to be a manuscript amendment—that will affect our decision?
      The Chairman: As far as I am concerned, I am dealing with the Committee stage at the moment. We have a little way to go yet.
      Mr. Bennett: Further to that point of order, Mr. Morris. I seek your assistance. It is difficult to table amendments on Report when we do not have a copy of the amended Bill. The order of the Bill will change, because Government and Opposition amendments have been carried. How do we table amendments on Report? Do we make them to the Bill before us or to the Bill as amended? I am sure that you appreciate that it is rare for amendments to be carried in Committee on the Floor of the House. We need some certainty, as the debate could end fairly suddenly and we would be on Report. We need to know how to proceed.
      The Chairman: Committee stages on the Floor of the House are often interesting. As far as the Chair is concerned, when the time comes, the order will be intelligible to the House.
      Mr. Bennett: My amendment No. 4 is in this group of amendments. It is difficult to bring the Committee back to considering the amendments, as it is fairly unprecedented for the Government to be defeated in this manner. The sooner a Minister comes to the Dispatch Box to tell us how we shall proceed, the better.
      I turn to the construction of clause 3, which begins with a civil remedy and builds a criminal offence on to that civil remedy. It is fairly unusual in this country for legislation to muddle criminal and civil court procedures, and I think that there are good reasons for keeping the two separate. The civil courts must balance the differing and conflicting interests of the two parties to the case. They have to decide between the two parties on the question of fairness. That is often extremely difficult, because the difference between the measure of proof on one side and the other may be fairly slim. The alternative approach of the criminal courts is that someone must be found guilty beyond all reasonable doubt.
      I am worried about the fact that the issue will first be dealt with by civil proceedings, and if someone is in breach of those proceedings, instead of ensuring that the matter is taken up by the courts as a contempt of court, we are creating a criminal offence. If we make a breach of an action in a civil court a criminal offence, we must make it clear that the same tests should be applied to the civil proceedings as would be applied in the criminal court. The standard of proof in the civil court should not be weaker than that applied in the criminal court.
      I suggest that the Government think seriously about the way in which subsections (3), (4), (5) and (6) of clause 3 fit in with the civil remedy. I shall listen with interest to the Minister.
      Mrs. Maddock: The amendment would ensure that civil proceedings on a claim for an injunction under the clause would not be referred to arbitration without the consent of all the parties. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that people can afford to deal with the situation in which they find themselves.
      Most civil proceedings take place in the county court. A system of arbitration without lawyers' fees was created 20 years ago. As we all know, that system is the small claims court, and its original jurisdiction was claims of £100. That was subsequently increased to £500 and then to £1,000, and recently to £3,000. Claims under that limit, with some exceptions, are compulsorily referred to arbitration.
      Until recently, it had been thought that the rules on exceptions meant that claims for injunctions would not be referred, but a court decision has now ruled otherwise. That is already causing problems in disrepair cases. A minor, but inadequate, alleviation to the rules has been made, so that it is a little easier for a case to come back from arbitration, and for a fixed sum of £270 for legal costs to be allowed in an injunction. That is well below the costs of preparing papers and appearing at a hearing—and, possibly, at a return date.
      That has had a knock-on effect on legal aid. It may be that the lack of costs recovery in such a case would not prevent legal aid. The purpose of the amendment is to
      848
      ensure that practical access to the courts remains available, and I hope that the Government will look favourably on it.
      Mr. Robert G. Hughes: One of the problems of debating amendments in this atmosphere is that we end up with legislation with holes in it. That does not seem to matter to Opposition parties. The amendment that has just been passed undoubtedly weakens the Bill and seeks to drive a coach and horses through it.
      The Chairman: Order. We have already discussed the previous amendment—I do not think that the hon. Member was present at the time. We are now on amendment No. 14, which he should be addressing.
      Mr. Hughes: You are quite right, Sir Michael.
      The Chairman: No, just Chairman or Mr. Morris.
      Mr. Alan Duncan: For 10 more days.
      Mr. Hughes: That is disgraceful. You should call my hon. Friend to order, Mr. Morris. I was obviously dazzled by your bow tie.
      I was making a point in parenthesis, and alluding to the fact that the Opposition are trying to soften the Bill. Here they go again—this is a good example of that. The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) makes long, tough speeches about how Labour will be tough on law and order and will crack down on this and that. He says that, if only the Government would do something, we could get rid of this crime. Then we come to the Committee stage of the Bill, and what happens? The Opposition are concerned not about the victims of these crimes but about what they regard as civil rights. By that, they mean the civil rights of the people who are perpetrating these crimes. That runs through the four amendments that are grouped.
      Mr. Michael Fabricant (Mid-Staffordshire): Does my hon. Friend agree that at least one charge that cannot be made against the Labour party is that of inconsistency? Have not Labour Members been consistent in opposing all measures in which we have tried to crack down on crime, and, indeed, on terrorism? They either vote against such measures—
      The Chairman: Order. The Bill has absolutely nothing to do with terrorism.
      9.45 pm
      Mr. Hughes: That was indeed a disgraceful intervention, but my hon. Friend is right. Bills that are currently being delayed in Committee—I shall not list them—could be rushed through the House if we could take the Labour party at its word.
      Amendment No. 4 proposes that we leave out a whole lump of the Bill. Why are those exclusions in the Bill in the first place? I think that it comes down to something that we see time and again. In this place, it is easy to be critical of judges and magistrates and the arguments advanced by lawyers, and to say, "Surely they must have

      849
      understood what we were trying to do; surely they understand what sort of criminals we are trying to catch. Why have they interpreted the law in that way?"
      We all know that it is sometimes difficult to understand the exact intent of a Bill. That does not imply that Ministers do not mean to introduce clauses whose intent is clear, or that the lawyers—the parliamentary draftsmen—do not sweat blood to try to ensure that clauses are comprehensible and will have the desired effect. In the lines that the Labour party wants to leave out, exclusions have been made with the aim of clarifying the legislation, so that matters will be clear when a case comes to court—so that we know why and how people will be convicted, and there will be no let-out in the small print of the Bill.
      The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) wants to leave out those lines, and, for all I know, he is supported by Opposition Front Benchers. If he is not, Opposition Front Benchers will no doubt explain why. The hon. Gentleman seeks to make a muddle of what is currently a very clear Bill.
      Amendment No. 25 would insert in clause 8, at line 36, the words:
      "In considering whether to order an interdict or interim interdict in proceedings under this section, a court shall have primary regard to whether such an order is necessary for the protection of what the court considers are the pursuer's legitimate interests".
      We all see what those who tabled the amendment are trying to protect. We all know that people who could come into that category might well have a legitimate interest, although some of us would find it rather hard to believe that certain journalists have a legitimate interest, given the pursuing that they do.
      Because of the form in which those who tabled the amendment are seeking to insert it in the Bill, however, it would have a wrecking effect—although, in procedural terms, it is not a wrecking amendment. I hope that the Committee will resist it, and that the Labour party will not seek to press it. Labour Members found themselves in a numerical majority earlier tonight, and no doubt they are now seeking to make hay with that; but seeking to add amendments such as this to the Bill, and to delete important parts of it, is highly irresponsible.
      Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I have been following my hon. Friend's interesting argument. Does he not accept that the Bill has widespread support, not only in the House but outside, and that hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber—indeed, members of all parties—seek to enact it as early as possible, establishing clear, firm law? Why does he think that the amendments were tabled? They certainly do not add to the strength or reason of the Bill.
      Mr. Hughes: Characteristically, my hon. Friend makes his points clearly. He is a clear-spoken man. He knows what he wants, sets out to achieve those things and is much admired in the House of Commons for that.
      Mr. Duncan: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. I am confused by the drafting of the amendments, which is self-contradictory. Amendment No. 14 talks about
      "the protection of what the court considers are the victim's legitimate interests."
      Amendment No. 25 talks about
      850
      "the protection of what the court considers are the pursuer's legitimate interests".
      I fully understand that that may refer to someone pursuing something in a court of law, but it is highly ambiguous in the context of someone referring to stalking, as it is called, because the pursuer may be seen in the court as a person who is persistently harassing someone. Are we not therefore deliberately and wilfully drawing up ambiguous legislation that may be misinterpreted in a court of law?
      The Chairman: In relation to my selection, the guiding factor is whether the amendments are sufficiently cognate to be discussed together, and they are.
      Mr. Straw: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. I wish to raise an important point of order for the whole Committee.
      As you know, a few minutes ago, the Government were defeated on amendment No. 13, the effect of which is to require county courts to be able to order, where they so wish, counselling with a view to requiring the offenders to confront their offending behaviour. The aim is for the provision to be piloted by courts before coming fully into force throughout Britain. It is unusual, first, for the Government to be defeated by seven votes, as they have been, and, secondly, for progress without agreement to be made so swiftly on a Bill.

      As we know, the Report stage will take place tomorrow. In view of that, Mr. Morris, do you agree that, before the 10 o'clock motion, we need a statement from Ministers explaining what their provisional attitude is to the amendment—after all, they have had many days to consider the amendment since it was tabled—and what their intentions are tomorrow when they come before the House? Do they intend to accept the amendment which, properly drafted, can be incorporated into the Bill or to try to remove it?
      The Chairman: This is not a matter for the occupant of the Chair, but those on the Treasury Bench will have heard the hon. Gentleman and will seek to respond as they believe appropriate.
      Mr. Straw: Further to that point of order, Mr. Morris. The Minister of State has now come into the Chamber. He is in charge of the Committee proceedings on the Bill. That part of the proceedings is due to finish at 10 o'clock. May we hear from him whether he intends to make a statement tonight, bearing it in mind that, for the convenience of the House, amendments for the Report stage will need to be tabled tonight or, at the latest, tomorrow morning? May I have your clarification on that as well?
      The Chairman: Hon. Members will have heard my ruling, and it remains unchanged.
      Mr. Bennett: On a point of order, Mr. Morris.
      The Chairman: Is this another point of order?
      Mr. Bennett: Yes, it is. It is on the proceedings of the House.
      I understand that amendments for Report stage cannot be tabled until the Committee has reported. That means, therefore, that Members have to have, in manuscript form,

      851
      the amendments that they would like to table, to hand in as soon as you move from one Chair to another. At that point, it is necessary for the House to have some idea of what is going to happen. I should have thought that it would be helpful, in making the selection, for the occupant of the Chair to have some idea of what is going to happen. It would appear to be difficult for the occupant of the Chair, in moving from one Chair to the other to start the Report stage, to make the selection, as it were, on the hoof. Would you give us some guidance on how we can make sensible progress on this issue?
      The Chairman: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for showing such concern for the Chair. I confirm that what he said on procedure is entirely correct, but I learned long ago to cross bridges when they are in front of me, not in anticipation of them.
      Sir Ivan Lawrence: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. To those of us sitting here, it rather looks as though the Opposition do not want to carry on with the Bill. I do not know whether they are inviting you to do something to stop the proceedings, but if they are, the country ought to know that the Opposition are opposing an extremely important Bill.
      The Chairman: I wish to make it absolutely clear that the Chair is here to serve the House until such hour as the House chooses to cease its debate.
      Several hon. Members rose—
      The Chairman: Order all round. I have given some helpful rulings, I think, and fair points of order have been raised. I would rather get on with the Bill, but if there are new dimensions to discuss, I will accept further points of order. They had better be new ones.
      Mr. Fabricant: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. I have scanned the Bill and I can see no definition of the word "pursuer". Could you enlighten the House whether pursuer—
      The Chairman: Order. That is nothing to do with the Chair.
      Mr. Straw: I crave your indulgence, Mr. Morris, on one more occasion. Further to that point of order, and in response to the point raised by the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence), may I make it clear that we have agreed, and we stick by the agreement, to co-operate with the Government in getting the Bill through? However, it is also for the Government to co-operate with the House in ensuring that the Bill gets through. The Committee has expressed its will this evening by 179 votes to 172 in respect of amendment No. 13. It is incumbent on Ministers on the Treasury Bench to facilitate progress on the Bill tomorrow.
      Mr. Maclean: I have heard all the points of order. The Government will ensure that the Bill is dealt with as expeditiously as possible on the Floor of the House, but I will not be bounced by the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) into making a pronouncement from the
      852
      Dispatch Box now on the result of the vote that we just heard. I assure hon. Members that we shall make the Government's view plain to the House at the earliest opportunity, in accordance with the rules of the House and our customs and conventions, to give hon. Members the maximum time within our rules to consider the announcement that we shall make in due course.
      The Chairman: Mr. Robert G. Hughes had the floor.
      Mr. Hughes: Thank you, Mr. Morris. My hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), to whose intervention I was responding, had his points answered by the hon. Member for Blackburn. It is clear that this group of amendments, like others, is designed to delay the Bill or to weaken it. The message must go out clearly from the Committee that the Labour party, aided and abetted by the Liberals, wants to weaken the Bill and delay it for as long as possible. That is what they voted for tonight. They cannot escape from their actions.
      Mr. George Howarth: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. Is it in order for an hon. Member, who was not even present during the events that he is describing, to accuse the Opposition of trying to delay the Bill? My hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) has made it clear that the Opposition remain willing to co-operate with the Government, as they have throughout, to bring the Bill on to the statute book. The Government's incompetence, not the Opposition, has got them into their present position.
      Mr. Beith: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. The views expressed from the Government Benches suggest that we might not continue to make progress on the Bill tonight. Will you confirm that, in order to do so, it will be necessary for the Government to move the 10 o'clock motion in two minutes? Will you be careful to ensure that, if a Whip moves the 10 o'clock motion, you notice him? Otherwise, we will not be able to make further progress.
      The Chairman: I assure the right hon. Gentleman that I will try to do my duty to the best of my ability. Not much gets by.
      Mr. Hughes: Given the dual evidence of the amendments on the amendment paper and the outrageous protestations of Opposition Members, it is clear that they want to delay and weaken the Bill. I do not want to delay it any further, so I shall sit down.
      Sir Ivan Lawrence: Mr. Morris, I left the Chamber for a moment to go to have something to eat. When I returned, I found the place in complete disorder—
      The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman clearly had a very good dinner.
      Sir Ivan Lawrence: I do, of course, apologise, Mr. Morris. I did not mean that this place—over which you preside—was in disorder, but that the Opposition's entire approach to the Bill was in disorder. My attention has been drawn to a list of amendments, which seems to be absolutely preposterous. On the basis that they are

      853
      trying to improve the Bill, why on earth have the Opposition tabled an amendment to consider the victim's legitimate interests—
      The Chairman: Order.
      It being Ten o'clock, THE CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report progress and ask leave to sit again.
      Committee report progress; to sit again tomorrow.

      DELEGATED LEGISLATION
      Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
      DELEGATED LEGISLATION

        INSURANCE PREMIUM TAX
        That the Insurance Premium Tax (Taxable Insurance Contracts) Order 1996 (S.I., 1996, No. 2955), dated 26th November 1996, a copy of which was laid before this House on 26th November, be approved.—[Mr. Brandreth.]
        Question agreed to.
        Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): With permission, I shall put together the Questions on motions Nos. 3 to 5.
        Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

        FAMILY LAW
        That the draft Child Support (Miscellaneous Amendments) (No. 2) Regulations 1996, which were laid before this House on 25th November, be approved.
        SOCIAL SECURITY
        That the draft Social Security (Child Maintenance Bonus) Regulations 1996, which were laid before this House on 25th November, be approved.

        MAGISTRATES' COURTS
        That the draft Magistrates' Courts (Remands in Custody) (Amendment) Order 1997, which was laid before this House on 20th November, be approved.—[Mr. Brandreth.]
        Question agreed to.
        Mr. Deputy Speaker: With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to the European Communities orders.
        Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated legislation),

        EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES
        That the draft European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (Europe Agreement establishing an Association between the European Communities and their Member States and the Republic of Lithuania) Order 1996, which was laid before this House on 26th November, be approved.
        That the draft European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (Europe Agreement establishing an Association between the European Communities and their Member States and the Republic of Latvia) Order 1996, which was laid before this House on 26th November, be approved.
        That the draft European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (Europe Agreement establishing an Association between the European Communities and their Member States and the Republic of Estonia) Order 1996, which was laid before this House on 26th November, be approved—[Mr. Brandreth.]
        Question agreed to.

      SELECT COMMITTEES
      Ordered,
      That Standing Order No. 121A (Committee on Standards and Privileges) be amended by inserting at the end of line 50 the words:
      '(6A) The committee, or any sub-committee, shall have power to refer to unreported evidence of former Committees of Privileges or of former Select Committees on Members' Interests and to any documents circulated to any such committee.'.—[Mr. Brandreth.]

    Hillsborough Tragedy
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Brandreth.]
    10.1 pm
    Mr. Peter Kilfoyle: It is with a very heavy heart that I speak in this Adjournment debate. I am grateful, however, that my hon. Friends and Conservative Members are in the Chamber. Families of the bereaved of Hillsborough have travelled down to London and are in the Strangers Gallery to provide their support during the debate. I particularly note that the Home Secretary has chosen to reply to this debate, because I think that he realises the significance and sensitivity of the issue.
    On 15 April 1989, on a glorious spring afternoon, 96 people went to a football match never to return again to their families. They were men and women of all ages—from 10 to 67—and 28 of them were 18 years old or less. They came from all parts of the country, although mainly from Merseyside, and all of them had one thing in common—a love of football, particularly of Liverpool football club.
    It would serve no useful purpose to repeat all the events of that day, or to attempt to rehearse the many legal arguments that have been made in the intervening seven and a half years, but it is important to establish, in general terms, what happened on that fateful day.
    Although the Liverpool supporters outnumbered the opposing team's supporters, they were allocated tickets for the smaller Leppings lane end. The allocation was made on the direction of the police, to facilitate their plans for incoming traffic carrying rival supporters. Roadworks on the trans-Pennine route slowed down the traffic carrying Liverpool fans. As they approached the ground, it was noted that match day arrangements had been changed from those for a similar game in the previous season.
    It has been pointed out that the standard practice at Sheffield and elsewhere was for police to channel supporters to the appropriate turnstiles by using crash barriers. Tragically, such action was not taken on that day, and it set in motion a train of events that led to the tragedy.
    The crowd built up outside the turnstiles in such a way that the police officer in charge there, Superintendent Murray, was concerned that fans were in grave danger of being crushed. He sought, and was given, permission from the officer in overall charge, Chief Superintendent Duckenfield, to open gate C to alleviate the crush outside. That resolved the immediate crisis, but gave rise to a much greater danger because the natural path for the fans to follow, unless directed otherwise, was through the tunnel facing them. There were no stewards or police to funnel fans into comparatively empty pens. Pressure built up in pens 3 and 4 and in the tunnel. These were the killing fields for 96 innocent men, women and children.
    In the immediate aftermath of the horror, there was a breakdown in official reaction to the tragedy, which unfolded live on television around the country. It was the fans who pleaded for the gates in the perimeter fence to be opened; it was the fans who requisitioned hoardings as makeshift stretchers; it was the fans who
    856
    began mouth-to-mouth resuscitation. Individual police officers and first aiders did what they could, but there was paralysis at the top of the command.
    As the Attorney-General observed in the House on 26 October 1994:
    "It was a painstaking and thorough inquiry. … The Taylor report placed the blame for the tragedy fairly and squarely on police handling of crowd control at the event."—[Official Report, 24 October 1994; Vol. 248, c. 981.]
    Lord Justice Taylor noted in paragraphs 311 and 278 of his interim report that
    "the real cause of the Hillsborough disaster was overcrowding"
    and that
    "the main reason for the disaster was the failure of police control."
    There was an agreed understanding in the Taylor report and beyond on what happened and who, in general, was responsible, but the inquiry did not take place in a vacuum. As the tragedy unfolded, misinformation was being spread. We were told that fans had broken down gate C, that hordes of drunken fans charged the rear of the Leppings lane entrance, and that the Liverpool fans had been the authors of the terrible misfortune of the day. Those who uttered such charges and wrote such lies should still hang their heads in shame, given the eventual findings of the Taylor inquiry.
    The low point must have been the infamous report of that terrible day in The Sun. Even by its Grub street standards it reached an abysmal low, but it was not alone. Newspaper after newspaper, tabloid and broadsheet, fed the line that fans were responsible for the deaths. The world is full of gullible people. Perhaps that is why, as late as 1993, the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans) was still peddling the line that it was all the fault of Liverpool fans. As late as 1995, Mr. Brian Clough continued to point the finger at the fans in his autobiography. There is no fool like an old fool, in politics or in football.
    At the same time, a steady stream of wholly partial versions of events emanated from police sources, blaming the fans and fuelling a climate of cynical disregard for the facts, dwelling instead on the exoneration of those who some might argue were culpable for the events of that day.
    We are here tonight because of a recent docudrama on Hillsborough which demythologised the Hillsborough tragedy and provided catharsis for the survivors and the families of the dead. It was plain to anyone who saw that harrowing account—I note that the Home Secretary has commented that it was a harrowing account—that there was a presumption by the authorities that drunken loutish behaviour was responsible for the deaths. That was illustrated by the tone and content of the police questioning in the docudrama. I do not accuse individual junior police officers of acting unprofessionally; they were following a line set out for them by senior officers and the press.
    If showing that a wholly erroneous version of events had been portrayed by the press had been the only achievement of the docudrama, it would have been worth while, but it also raised the issue of the allegedly faulty video camera and the missing video tape. In my research, I noticed that, in questions to the Home Secretary in the House following his statement of

    857
    17 April 1989, my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) urged that all film of the tragedy be made available to the proposed inquiry. He presciently said:
    "Unless we move quickly, that footage may be lost and it contains evidence that may be of great value to the inquiry."—[Official Report, 17 April 1989; Vol. 151, c. 38.]
    How right he was.
    We now have the testimony of Mr. Roger Houldsworth—a video technician on duty at Hillsborough on that fateful day—who apparently contradicts the police version of the state of the video cameras. He had the same view as the police of the build-up of fans in the pens. His analysis of the impending disaster is as at odds with the view of the police.
    Of course, the police take contradictory positions on Mr. Houldsworth's testimony. First, they say that there is no new evidence in it, yet it was not put before the inquiry or the inquest. Only the police version of the video evidence was put to the inquest jury. Apparently, the South Yorkshire police, the coroner, and the investigating force—the West Midlands police—have hitherto declined to co-operate in determining how much of Mr. Houldsworth's evidence was known and to whom. Nor has there been, as far as I am aware, any attempt to clarify how, and by whom, it was decided not to call him. Some would describe that as a conspiracy of silence.
    However, the Yorkshire Post has ascribed to the police the view that Mr. Houldsworth has changed what he said at the time, which contradicts the "nothing new" argument. The police cannot have it both ways. Without doubt there are serious grounds either way for reviewing that vital evidence. That must be added to the other outstanding questions that have never yet been answered.
    The South Yorkshire police, in particular, must still answer the following questions. Why was Chief Superintendent Duckenfield put in charge of a major semi-final only 21 days before the game, when he was relatively inexperienced at policing football matches? Why, unlike in 1988, were there no barriers or cordons to filter the crowd outside the Leppings lane end? As the danger unfolded, why was the kick-off not delayed? Why did police not recognise the build-up in pens 3 and 4 when television commentator John Motson and the video technician, Roger Houldsworth, clearly saw what was happening?
    Why was the lethal tunnel not sealed off as it had been in 1988? Why did Chief Superintendent Duckenfield tell the Football Association that fans had forced gate C when he had ordered it to be opened? Why did it take until 3.30 pm to make an announcement on the public address system to inform or instruct fans or to seek medical personnel to help the dying and the injured? Given that 42 ambulances reached the ground, why did not more of them get on to the pitch to provide expert medical help? Why did only 14 of those who died get to hospital? Why was the city's major medical disaster plan never put into effect?
    Those and many more questions need to be answered. The House cannot raise the dead, but I hope that we can raise the burden on the survivors and on the families of the victims, who wish only to see that justice is done. The dead, their families and survivors cry out in the name of
    858
    natural justice to be answered. It is incumbent on us to seek a reopening of the inquiry into the events of that dreadful day.
    10.12 pm
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Michael Howard): I would like to join the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle) in expressing my deepest sympathy to the families involved in the tragic event which took place at Hillsborough. I know that I speak for the whole House when I say that our thoughts will remain with them this Christmas, which I know that they must find a particularly difficult time of year.
    Anybody who saw the news reports on that dreadful Saturday, 15 April 1989, will have been overwhelmed by the terrible, distressing pictures. I know that the loss of the families that suffered that appalling tragedy was made all the worse by the fact that it arose from an event that should have been a normal family outing.
    I have watched the programme "Hillsborough" and I indeed found it harrowing, but the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that any decisions that I am called upon to make have to be made on the basis of a consideration of all the relevant facts, not simply on the basis of one television programme, however powerful and moving. As the hon. Gentleman knows, there have been four independent investigations and reviews of the Hillsborough tragedy: Lord Taylor's inquiry; the inquest into each of the deaths; the investigation into police behaviour supervised by the Police Complaints Authority; and the judicial review of the inquest. Each of those inquiries served a different purpose, and it might be helpful if I said a little about each of them and their outcomes.
    First, the formal inquiry by Lord Taylor was commissioned by the then Home Secretary on the second day after the disaster. Its terms of reference were not only to inquire into the events but to make recommendations about crowd control and safety at sports events. Over 31 days, between 15 May and 29 June 1989, Lord Taylor heard oral evidence from 174 witnesses at a public hearing in Sheffield. He also received evidence in the form of submissions and letters. The inquiry considered video film from three separate sources, providing in all about 71 hours of further evidence.
    Lord Taylor published an interim report in August 1989, setting out the causes of the disaster and making immediate recommendations. He found that there were a number of causes of that disaster. The immediate cause of the gross overcrowding was the failure to cut off access to the central pens, which were already over-full. They were already over-full because no safe maximum capacities had been laid down, because no attempt was made to control entry to individual pens numerically, and because there was no effective visual monitoring of crowd density.
    Lord Taylor found that, when the influx from gate C entered pen 3, the layout of the barriers afforded less protection than it should have done, and the barrier collapsed. He found that the need to open gate C was due to dangerous congestion at the turnstiles. That congestion occurred because, as both the club and the police should have realised, the turnstile area could not easily cope with the large numbers unless they arrived steadily over a

    859
    lengthy period. The police had failed to draw up plans on how to control large numbers should they arrive in a short period. Unfortunately, that event, which Lord Taylor considered to be foreseeable, was what took place.
    Finally, Lord Taylor found that the presence of an unruly minority, who had drunk too much, aggravated the problem, as did the club's confused and inadequate signs and ticketing. There were a number of reasons for that dreadful disaster, and no single person or organisation was held to blame, but Lord Taylor did clearly put a significant portion of the blame at the door of the police. Indeed, he was particularly critical of the attitude of South Yorkshire police to the disaster.
    Lord Taylor said:
    "It is a matter of regret that at the hearing and in their submissions the South Yorkshire Police were not prepared to concede that they were in any respect at fault in what occurred. Mr. Duckenfield, under pressure of cross-examination, apologised for blaming the Liverpool fans for causing the deaths. But that apart, the police case was to blame the fans for being late and drunk and to blame the club for failing to monitor the pens. It was argued that the fatal crush was not caused by the influx through gate C but was due to barrier 124a being defective. Such an unrealistic approach gives cause for anxiety as to whether lessons have been learnt. It would have been more seemly and encouraging for the future if responsibility had been faced."
    Lord Taylor also considered the reports that had been published in the press about the behaviour of Liverpool fans. Again I quote from his report:
    "Before this Inquiry began there were stories reported in the press, and said to have emanated from police officers present at the match, of 'mass drunkenness'. It was said that drunken fans urinated on police whilst they were pulling the dead and injured out, that others had even urinated on the bodies of the dead and stolen their belongings. Not a single witness was called before the inquiry to support any of those allegations, although every opportunity was afforded for any of the represented parties to have any witness called whom they wished. As soon as the allegations I have mentioned were made in the press, Mr. Peter Wright, Chief Constable of South Yorkshire, made a dignified statement dissociating himself from such grave and emotive calumnies. Those who made them and those who disseminated them would have done better to hold their peace."
    That is strong criticism. I think that those quotations demonstrate that many of the points made by the programme, "Hillsborough", were considered by Lord Taylor at the time.
    I should stress that, since the report, the police have accepted responsibility for the part that they played in the disaster. The present chief constable of South Yorkshire, Richard Wells, has on several occasions publicly expressed his deep sorrow at the deaths. More recently, on the "Today" programme, he said that the police saw their responsibility in three particular areas. He admitted that, once the gates were open, the police should have foreseen where the fans would go; he accepted that they might have reduced some of the pressure by changing the kick-off time; and he also accepted that officers did not recognise soon enough the distinction between disorder and distress. The South Yorkshire police have accepted that they were at fault in those respects and the South Yorkshire police authority has paid compensation to the families of those who died.
    The second investigation into events was an inquest conducted by Her Majesty's coroner for the western district of South Yorkshire. That was a difficult task,
    860
    partly because of the number of deaths and partly because the Taylor inquiry was still in progress. The coroner conducted an inquiry into the deaths and sat for a total of 96 days. It is important that I remind the House of the purpose of an inquest.
    An inquest is a fact-finding inquiry conducted to establish reliable answers to four important but limited factual questions. They are the identity of the deceased, the place of death, the time—if known—and the date of death, and how the deceased came by his or her death. That is all an inquest can consider. Rule 36 of the coroners' rules of 1984 requires that proceedings and evidence are directed solely at finding answers to those questions and forbids any expression of opinion on other matters.
    The jury examining the evidence found that the cause of death was accidental death, but the findings of an inquest do not bind any person affected by them. The inquest's conclusion, indeed, must not be framed in such a way as to determine any question of criminal responsibility on the part of any named person or any question of civil liability. A finding of accidental death does not prevent further proceedings.
    The third investigation into the disaster was conducted by West Midlands police, supervised by the independent Police Complaints Authority, with a view to establishing whether the tragedy resulted from, or was made worse by, criminal activity on the part of any individual. It also considered whether any officer should be subject to disciplinary proceedings.
    The investigation involved the taking of 5,341 statements, as well as scrutiny of all the material that had previously been examined. The evidence was sent to the Director of Public Prosecutions, who concluded that the result did not indicate that anyone should be made the subject of criminal proceedings. That has meant that neither Chief Superintendent Duckenfield nor Superintendent Murray, who were both criticised by the Taylor inquiry—nor for that matter any other person—has been charged with any crime. For any other person apart from a police officer, that would have been the end of the proceedings, but for a police officer there remained the question of whether they had failed in their duty.
    The Police Complaints Authority decided that Chief Superintendent Duckenfield and Superintendent Murray should face disciplinary charges. Police disciplinary hearings are held in private. They are concerned only with whether an officer may have failed to conform to police discipline; they do not consider wider issues.
    In the event, Mr. Duckenfield retired due to ill health in advance of a disciplinary tribunal's ruling on whether he was guilty. It is sometimes forgotten that, although a number of punishments can be imposed for bad discipline, the most serious that a disciplinary tribunal can impose is that of dismissal or of a requirement to resign. In the event, Mr. Duckenfield stopped being a police officer and the disciplinary hearing could not continue, because such hearings can be held only on police officers.
    The Police Complaints Authority announced subsequently that disciplinary proceedings against Superintendent Murray would be withdrawn. When explaining its decision, the authority stated that the retirement of the chief superintendent, Mr. Duckenfield, on medical grounds, meant that what in effect was a joint

    861
    allegation of neglect of duty could not be fairly heard in the absence of the more senior officer. However, some time later, Superintendent Murray decided that he did not wish to remain as a police officer either.
    It is of course well known that there was dissatisfaction with the verdict of the inquest. The law provides a remedy for that by way of judicial review. The fourth examination, therefore, was the judicial review of the coroner's proceedings.
    Relatives of a number of the victims applied for judicial review. In those proceedings, the conduct of the South Yorkshire coroner's inquest was subjected to a close and detailed examination. In giving the judgment of the divisional court, Lord Justice McCowan ruled very clearly that none of the points raised justified the intervention of that court. In particular, the court found that the decision of the coroner to exclude evidence of what happened after 3.15 pm on that afternoon was not an unreasonable decision. It also made no criticism of the coroner's directions to the jury.
    Clearly, it is not possible for me to know the truth of what happened on that terrible Saturday. What is important is that we should be satisfied that those dreadful events seven years ago have been fully investigated and examined. The hon. Member for Walton calls for a reopening of the public inquiry. I have had a number of letters making a similar request from those who were bereaved, and I have met at least two of them.
    I have said that I will consider those representations. I must emphasise the fact that I would not take a decision to reopen the inquiry lightly: I must be convinced that it would be in the public interest to do so.
    862
    The charge has been made—it is one that I will consider carefully—that there has been a cover-up, an attempt to pervert the course of justice. I shall also consider whether there is any new evidence, and if so, whether that evidence is of such significance that had it been put before Lord Taylor or before the coroner, either the outcome of the Taylor inquiry or the verdict of the jury would have been different.
    As I consider those questions, I shall be searching for the truth about what happened. It has been said that there was a video camera trained on the central enclosure, and that the Taylor inquiry was told that it was not working, although that was not the case. But I have been informed by the chief constable of South Yorkshire that both the videotape and a transcript of that tape were made available to the Taylor inquiry. Clearly, that is a matter that I will need to look into.
    I fully sympathise with the families who feel that in some way they have not learnt the whole truth about the deaths of their loved ones. Certainly in an appalling tragedy such as Hillsborough it is perhaps inevitable, though deeply distressing for the families, that there will be confusion about some details.
    I shall reach a decision on any further action to be taken as soon as I have been able to consider all those issues. I shall certainly take into account everything that the hon. Gentleman has said tonight. Whatever my decision, I shall always be deeply moved by the memory of that awful event at Hillsborough on 15 April 1989.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Adjourned accordingly at twenty-seven minutes past Ten o'clock.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  "New Labour's Public Expenditure Plans"
  Mr. Derek Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what costs quoted in the document, "New Labour's Public Expenditure Plans", were prepared in his Department; what detailed assumptions and interpretations were provided to officials in his Department to enable preparation of each cost; and what was the total cost to public funds of preparing each estimate. [6343]

  Mrs. Gillian Shephard
  [holding answer December 2 1996]The Department for Education and Employment, in conjunction with the Treasury, prepared factual material relating to costings published in "New Labour's Public Expenditure Plans" numbered 32 to 53. The detailed assumptions and interpretations that were provided to officials are set out in my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary's reply to the hon. Member today. It is not normal working practice to keep a record of the time spent in providing factual information to Ministers and it is not therefore possible to offer a reliable estimate of the costs involved.

  Motivation and Achievement
  Mr. Bryan Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State of Education and Employment when she plans to establish the national advisory group on improving motivation and tackling under-achievement. [8841]

  Mr. Paice
  I regard the establishment of the advisory group as an essential first step in the development of the relaunch strategy, because I want to harness the expert advice of all our partners. I expect the group to hold its first meeting early in 1997.

  National Vocational Qualifications
  Mr. Bryan Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment she has made of the findings of the study "The Assessment of NVQs" by the University of Sussex institute of education. [8897]

  Mr. Paice
  The author of the report, Professor Eraut, accepted the invitation of the National Council for Vocational Qualification to address its NVQ policy committee on 5 December to discuss his report. The council will take those findings into account when revising the requirements for NVQs. The research raised important questions about the difficulties of assessment in NVQs, particularly when it occurs away from the job, but it also showed that very few practitioners wanted to go back to the old patterns of training and assessment.

  Stammering
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will provide financial support for the distribution of the British Stammering Association teachers' video pack to schools nationwide. [8913]

  Mrs. Gillan
  The Department made a major contribution to the costs of producing the video. We have assisted the British Stammering Association with the distribution of copies to local education authorities. We shall be advertising the video in "Schools Update", a departmental publication which goes to every school in England.

  Teachers (Early Retirement)
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will make a statement on the timetable and consultation procedure on proposals to modify the arrangements for meeting the pension costs of early retirement for teachers in maintained and in independent schools. [9303]

  Mrs. Gillan
  The proposals were issued for consultation on 22 October 1996, with a closing date for responses of 17 January 1997. My right hon. Friend will take final decisions after that date.

  Mr. Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will estimate the increase in contingent liabilities for trustees of schools administered by charities following the proposed modification of funding arrangements for early retirement pensions for teachers. [9304]

  Mrs. Gillan
  My right hon. Friend does not expect there to be an increase in contingent liabilities following the proposed reforms of premature retirement arrangements for teachers. Independent schools make their own decisions on premature retirement. The ongoing pension costs they will incur for premature retirements granted after 1 April 1997 will be liabilities, but they will not be contingent.

  Standard Spending Assessments
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) which local education authorities in the current year are budgeted to spend at or below the education standard spending assessment level; [9186]

  (2) if she will list the local education authorities that have budgeted to spend over their education standard spending assessment level in the current financial year, indicating the percentage of excess expenditure planned in each case. [9185]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The following table shows each local education authority's education standard spending assessment and education budget for 1996–97, and the percentage difference.

  Education SSAs and budgets 1996–97

  LEA

  1996–97 SSA £million

  1996–97 Budget £million

  1996–97 Difference Per cent.

  City of London

  0.759

  3.085

  306.6

  Kensington and Chelsea

  34.193

  48.214

  41.0

  Westminster

  58.134

  72.585

  24.9

  483

  Education SSAs and budgets 1996–97

  LEA

  1996–97 SSA £million

  1996–97 Budget £million

  1996–97 Difference Per cent.

  Bristol

  119.870

  140.36

  17.1

  North Lincolnshire

  56.381

  65.589

  16.3

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  56.047

  64.419

  14.9

  Bath and North-east Somerset

  54.404

  62.446

  14.8

  Newcastle-upon-Tyne

  99.652

  112.479

  12.9

  North Somerset

  58.642

  65.949

  12.5

  Hackney

  92.084

  102.717

  11.5

  South Gloucestershire

  78.677

  87.726

  11.5

  East Riding

  102.954

  114.234

  11.0

  Bury

  61.635

  68.308

  10.8

  Gateshead

  70.844

  78.423

  10.7

  St. Helens

  66.604

  73.701

  10.7

  Coventry

  119.872

  132.425

  10.5

  Harrow

  72.990

  80.432

  10.2

  Salford

  82.496

  90.705

  10.0

  Leeds

  252.509

  277.521

  9.9

  Lambeth

  100.826

  110.569

  9.7

  Isles of Scilly

  1.233

  1.348

  9.3

  Wolverhampton

  99.898

  109.18

  9.3

  Solihull

  73.069

  79.732

  9.1

  Kirklees

  141.523

  153.676

  8.6

  Haringey

  93.427

  101.424

  8.6

  Richmond-upon-Thames

  45.854

  49.779

  8.6

  Sandwell

  118.096

  128.118

  8.5

  Croydon

  118.396

  128.375

  8.4

  Norfolk

  243.384

  263.296

  8.2

  Barnet

  117.029

  126.56

  8.1

  Tower Hamlets

  122.839

  132.482

  7.8

  Dudley

  104.158

  112.232

  7.8

  Lincolnshire

  213.026

  228.873

  7.4

  Stockport

  89.804

  96.405

  7.4

  Oldham

  94.759

  101.526

  7.1

  Wigan

  110.133

  117.974

  7.1

  Barking and Dagenham

  69.879

  74.848

  7.1

  North Yorkshire

  185.854

  198.947

  7.0

  Cumbria

  170.602

  182.085

  6.7

  Camden

  78.312

  83.467

  6.6

  Walsall

  108.588

  115.647

  6.5

  Wandsworth

  86.304

  91.601

  6.1

  Lancashire

  510.448

  541.678

  6.1

  Cheshire

  348.970

  369.25

  5.8

  Birmingham

  448.721

  474.736

  5.8

  Sefton

  106.847

  113.041

  5.8

  Trafford

  76.735

  80.994

  5.6

  Suffolk

  217.470

  229.341

  5.5

  Derbyshire

  319.922

  335.955

  5.0

  Bolton

  100.891

  105.938

  5.0

  Wiltshire

  197.517

  207.308

  5.0

  Somerset

  150.908

  158.312

  4.9

  East Sussex

  219.761

  230.305

  4.8

  North Tyneside

  68.757

  72.034

  4.8

  Nottinghamshire

  365.135

  382.423

  4.7

  Northumberland

  113.513

  118.872

  4.7

  Surrey

  307.474

  321.961

  4.7

  Hampshire

  525.153

  548.077

  4.4

  Warwickshire

  164.025

  170.672

  4.1

  Leicestershire

  333.840

  345.657

  3.5

  Lewisham

  108.942

  112.709

  3.5

  Southwark

  109.297

  113.071

  3.5

  Kingston-on-Hull

  102.701

  106.112

  3.3

  Isle of Wight

  45.138

  46.618

  3.3

  Greenwich

  114.263

  117.975

  3.2

  Cambridgeshire

  237.278

  244.971

  3.2

  Shropshire

  145.332

  149.995

  3.2

  Ealing

  112.151

  115.671

  3.1

  Wakefield

  111.605

  115.098

  3.1

  Durham

  216.644

  223.37

  3.1

  Islington

  81.095

  83.6

  3.1

  Kingston-upon-Thames

  47.066

  48.482

  3.0

  York

  52.793

  54.249

  2.8

  Enfield

  117.827

  121.052

  2.7

  Hertfordshire

  387.245

  397.772

  2.7

  Tameside

  80.591

  82.671

  2.6

  Staffordshire

  366.019

  375.302

  2.5

  Rochdale

  82.736

  84.829

  2.5

  484

  Education SSAs and budgets 1996–97

  LEA

  1996–97 SSA £million

  1996–97 Budget £million

  1996–97 Difference Per cent.

  West Sussex

  235.410

  241.273

  2.5

  Calderdale

  77.167

  78.992

  2.4

  Bromley

  103.845

  106.244

  2.3

  Northamptonshire

  222.270

  227.12

  2.2

  Dorset

  207.427

  211.929

  2.2

  South Tyneside

  59.030

  60.301

  2.2

  Merton

  58.096

  59.309

  2.1

  Waltham Forest

  97.421

  99.416

  2.0

  Sutton

  67.782

  69.116

  2.0

  Doncaster

  119.680

  121.6

  1.6

  Oxfordshire

  192.571

  195.19

  1.4

  Essex

  566.981

  573.518

  1.2

  Liverpool

  209.232

  211.492

  1.1

  Redbridge

  98.258

  99.055

  0.8

  Kent

  581.733

  584.829

  0.5

  Gloucestershire

  183.797

  184.761

  0.5

  Buckinghamshire

  252.855

  254.076

  0.5

  Wirral

  132.298

  132.773

  0.4

  Devon

  345.862

  346.134

  0.1

  Cornwall

  164.930

  164.914

  0.0

  Hereford and Worcester

  229.005

  228.907

  0.0

  Bedfordshire

  220.156

  219.921

  -0.1

  Hartlepool

  37.013

  36.944

  -0.2

  Rotherham

  102.425

  102.173

  -0.2

  Havering

  87.183

  86.864

  -0.4

  Hillingdon

  93.797

  93.427

  -0.4

  Sheffield

  170.970

  170.18

  -0.5

  Knowsley

  73.138

  72.785

  -0.5

  Manchester

  188.261

  186.917

  -0.7

  Hounslow

  94.807

  94.071

  -0.8

  Middlesbrough

  61.491

  60.996

  -0.8

  Stockton-on-Tees

  71.747

  71.094

  -0.9

  Sunderland

  114.863

  113.582

  -1.1

  Barnsley

  76.867

  75.887

  -1.3

  Bradford

  209.868

  205.955

  -1.9

  Redcar and Cleveland

  59.590

  58.348

  -2.1

  North-east Lincolnshire

  64.840

  63.069

  -2.7

  Berkshire

  282.308

  274.143

  -2.9

  Bexley

  88.646

  85.177

  -3.9

  Brent

  109.692

  103.504

  -5.6

  Newham

  130.381

  121.028

  -7.2

  Total

  17,764.2

  18,476.577

  4.0

  Learning Difficulties
  Mr. Faber
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will use the introduction of mandatory baseline assessment to provide effective screening for children at risk of literacy and numeracy difficulties. [9496]

  Mrs. Gillan
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Sir J. Hannam) on 3 December 1996,Official Report, column 611.

  Schools (Ethnic Minorities)
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how she plans to monitor ethnic minority achievement through the national curriculum. [8811]

  Mrs. Gillan
  As I announced on 5 September, we propose to use the baseline statistics on the ethnic composition of each school, which we will be collecting through the annual schools census, as a basis for considering ways of monitoring ethnic minority pupils' progress through national curriculum assessment. We aim to consult on these in due course.
  485
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) if she will list this new arrangements for collecting baseline statistics on the ethnic composition of schools; [8812]

  (2) when she plans to introduce the collection of baseline statistics on the ethnic composition of schools. [8813]

  Mrs. Gillan
  We included two new questions in the 1996 schools census covering (i) the total number of minority ethnic pupils, and (ii) the total number of pupils for whom English is a second language, in each school. For the 1997 schools census, we will include a more detailed count of the number of pupils in each ethnic group for the school as a whole, and a separate count, in secondary schools only, of the number of pupils aged 15 in each ethnic group at the start of the academic year.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when the School Curriculum Assessment Authority and the National Council for Vocational Qualifications will report their recommendations on how best to introduce ethnic monitoring for post-16 qualifications. [8814]

  Mrs. Gillan
  Current plans are that SCAA and NCVQ will provide advice to Ministers on the data collection recommendations in Sir Ron Dearing's report on 16 to 19 qualifications by May 1997.

  Legislation
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many items of legislation relating to her Department have been repealed since January 1994; how many statutory instruments were introduced during the same period; and how many of the latter were(a) deregulatory and (b) fee orders. [9373]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster today.

  Personal Services Industry
  Mr. Ian McCartney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will place in the Library a copy of the existing guidance, covering the acceptance of job advertisements by jobcentres; if the jobs on offer require the applicant to work as a model, or in(a) a sauna bath, (b) a massage parlour, (c) an escort agency and (d) a kissogram agency. [9613]

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

  Letter from M. E. G. Fogden to Mr. Ian McCartney, dated 17 December 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Education and Employment has asked me to write to you about your request that the Employment Service's existing guidance covering vacancies for employment as a model, in a sauna bath, a massage parlour, an escort agency or a kissogram agency be placed in the Library. This falls within my responsibility as Chief Executive of the Agency.
  The information requested is contained in the Guide to Job Broking volume 1 and I am arranging for a copy to be placed in the Library. The relevant instructions are contained in chapter 3, paragraphs 186 to 202.
  486
  In the light of recent events the Secretary of State has asked for this present guidance to be reviewed. This work is in hand and, subject to legal advice, should shortly be available. I will arrange for the new guidance to be sent to you and to be placed in the Library.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Schools (Performance)
  Dr. Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when assessment she has made of the relative performance of grant-maintained and local authority schools. [9786]

  Mr. Forth
  The 1996 school performance tables show that 50 per cent. of pupils in grant-maintained schools achieved five or more good GCSE passes, compared with 41 per cent. of pupils in LEA schools. There was almost no difference in the performance of pupils in selective schools in the two sectors, but 46 per cent. of pupils in GM comprehensive schools achieved five or more good GCSE passes compared with 40 per cent. in LEA schools. Analysis of the GCSE performance tables from 1992 to 1996 shows that GM schools have made rather more progress than comparable LEA schools in raising standards year on year. In the 1996 national curriculum assessments for 7, 11 and 14-year-olds, a higher proportion of pupils in GM schools reached or exceeded the expected levels of performance at each key stage. Details are set out in the following tables:

  Table 1: Percentage of 15-year-old pupils achieving graded GCSE results in 1996

  Grades (per cent.)

  Grades (per cent.)

  Grades (per cent.)

  1A: all schools

  GCSE passes

  5+ A*-C

  5+ A*-G

  1+ A-G

  LEA schools

  40.6 per cent.

  87.1 per cent.

  93.4 per cent.

  GM schools

  50.1 per cent.

  91.1 per cent.

  95.3 per cent.

  1B: comprehensive schools only

  GCSE passes

  5+ A*-C

  5+ A*-G

  1+ A-G

  LEA comprehensives

  40.0 per cent.

  87.0 per cent.

  93.3 per cent.

  GM comprehensives

  46.4 per cent.

  91.1 per cent.

  95.6 per cent.

  Table 2: time series comparison of LEA maintained schools with schools which became grant-maintained on or before 1 September 1992

  Percentage of pupils achieving 5+ A-C GCSEs in 1992

  Percentage of pupils achieving 5+ A*-C GCSEs in 1996

  Percentage point increase 1996 over 1992

  LEA

  Selective

  maintained

  Non-selective

  89.2

  93.4

  4.2

  schools

  32.2

  38.3

  6.1

  GM schools

  Selective

  89.3

  94.6

  5.3

  Non-selective

  37.5

  45.6

  8.1

  Table 3: Percentage of seven-year-old pupils achieving national curriculum level 2 and above

  Key stage 1

  English

  Mathematics

  Science

  1TA

  1Test

  TA

  Test

  TA

  Test

  LEA schools

  79

  —

  82

  82

  84

  —

  Reading

  78

  78

  Writing

  76

  80

  487

  Table 3: Percentage of seven-year-old pupils achieving national curriculum level 2 and above

  Key stage 1

  English

  Mathematics

  Science

  1TA

  1Test

  TA

  Test

  TA

  Test

  Speaking and listening

  82

  GM schools

  85

  —

  86

  87

  88

  —

  Reading

  84

  84

  Writing

  82

  85

  Speaking and listening

  85

  —

  Note:

  1TA = teacher assessment, Test = national test.

  Table 4: Percentage of 11-year-old pupils achieving national curriculum level 4 and above

  English

  Mathematics

  Science

  Key stage 2

  TA

  Test

  TA

  Test

  TA

  Test

  LEA schools

  60

  57

  60

  54

  65

  62

  GM schools

  64

  63

  65

  60

  69

  68

  Table 5: Percentage of 14-year-old pupils achieving national curriculum level 5 and above

  English

  Mathematics

  Science

  Key stage 3

  TA

  Test

  TA

  Test

  TA

  Test

  LEA schools

  60

  56

  61

  56

  59

  55

  GM schools

  68

  65

  69

  65

  68

  65

  Work Accidents (Cost)
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what estimate she has made of the cost to the economy of accidents at work in each year since 1990; and if she will make a statement. [9442]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Health and Safety Executive estimates that the total cost to the economy of work accidents, including preventable damage-only accidents, and work-related ill health was between £6 billion and £12 billion in 1990.

  The next updating of these costs by the Health and Safety Executive will be in 1998. The updating will cover costs for 1995–96, on which the necessary data will be compiled from the Labour Force Survey.

  Building Research Establishment
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment which projects that the Building Research Establishment is currently undertaking will cease on privatisation. [9391]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  I have been asked to reply.

  I do not anticipate that any projects will cease as a result of privatisation.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  Belize
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make it his policy that no British funds or loans will be disbursed for the paving of the Belize southern highway until the 488
  necessary social and environmental safeguards for the protection of the rainforest and the Maya peoples of Toledo district are in place. [9509]

  Dr. Liam Fox
  Our appraisal of the Belize southern highway project will take fully into account the social and environmental impact of paving the road before a decision is made on Britain's financial contribution.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Tea Room
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Chairman of the Catering Committee (1) what was the total number of supervisors and managers responsible for the supervision of services provided by the House of Commons Tea Room in each year from 1990 to 1995; [9020]

  (2) what was the total wage bill of the kitchen and counter staff in the House of Commons Tea Room in each year from 1990 to 1995; [9024]

  (3) how many management and supervisory staff are planned to be responsible for the House of Commons Tea Room when all facilities are fully operational; [9028]

  (4) how many counter and kitchen staff were in attendance over a full working week in the House of Commons Tea Room in each year from 1990 to 1995; [9018]

  (5) how many House of Commons Tea Room staff have had their working hours reduced in the past six months; [9026]

  (6) what was the total number of hours worked by counter and kitchen staff in the House of Commons Tea Room in each year from 1990 to 1995; [9019]

  (7) how many counter and kitchen staff are planned to be in attendance over a full working week in the House of Commons Tea Room when all facilities are operational. [9027]

  Sir Colin Shepherd
  These are matters for the Director of Catering Services. I have asked her to write to the hon. Gentleman.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Chairman of the Catering Committee what consultations took place with hon. Members prior to introducing the most recent changes in the House of Commons Tea Room. [9022]

  Sir Colin Shepherd
  Between 3 March and 5 May 1993, as part of its inquiry into refreshment services for the House of Commons, the Catering Committee took formal oral evidence from the hon. Members for Warrington, North (Mr. Hoyle), for Wolverhampton, South-East (Mr. Turner) and for Burnley (Mr. Pike), on behalf of the parliamentary Labour party, from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) and from the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood). The evidence from these hon. Members included comments on the Members' Tea Room.

  Written submissions, dealing in part with the Members' Tea Room, were also received from the hon. Members for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood), for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) and for Reading, West (Sir A. Durant).
  489
  These submissions were received in response to a notice inserted in the "All Party Notices," inviting comments from all hon. Members on the various aspects of the proposed refurbishment of Refreshment Department outlets and premises.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Chairman of the Catering Committee if he will place in the Library copies of the consultation documents relating to organisational changes in the Tea Room. [9023]

  Sir Colin Shepherd
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the First Report from the Catering Committee, Session (1993–94), HC (1993–94) 75–I and—II, which includes relevant documentation.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Chairman of the Catering Committee what was the total capital cost of those changes to the House of Commons Tea Room introduced in 1996. [9021]

  Sir Colin Shepherd
  The refurbishment of the Tea Room was carried out in conjunction with the construction of the new Terrace cafeteria kitchen, which also serves the Tea Room. It is not, therefore, possible to allocate the costs of the various elements of the project meaningfully between the two areas.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Chairman of the Catering Committee what estimate he has made of the average amount of time it will take an average customer in the House of Commons Tea Room to be served hot food when all facilities are fully operational. [9029]

  Sir Colin Shepherd
  As the new service has been in operation for less than two weeks, it is not possible at this stage to forecast the average time that it might take for a customer to be served hot food. I have, however, requested the Director of Catering Services to monitor the time taken to serve hon. Members; the Catering Committee will, of course, continue to keep the matter under review.

  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Chairman of the Catering Committee what surveys he intends to undertake on customer attitudes to the changes introduced in the House of Commons Tea Room over the last 12 months. [9030]

  Sir Colin Shepherd
  The Catering Committee is keeping the matter under constant review through informal consultation with hon. Members, scrutiny of the comments book in the Members' Tea Room and through discussions with the Director of Catering Services. Any formal survey would be conducted by the management of the Refreshment Department, and although I am not aware of any such plans at present, the Department has conducted annual in-depth surveys in June or July in each of the last three years.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Legislation
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Attorney-General how many items of legislation relating to his Department have been repealed since January 1994; how many statutory 490
  instruments were introduced during the same period; and how many of the latter were (a) deregulatory and (b) fee orders. [9368]

  The Attorney-General
  I refer to the hon. Member to the answer given today by my hon. Friend the Paymaster General.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  "New Labour's Public Expenditure Plans"
  Mr. Derek Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what costs quoted in the document, "New labour's Public Expenditure Plans", were prepared in his Department; what detailed assumptions and interpretations were provided to officials in his Department to enable preparation of each cost; and what was the total cost to public funds of preparing each estimate. [6351]

  Mr. Hanley
  This Department, in conjunction with the Treasury, prepared factual material relating to costings published in "New Labour's Public Expenditure Plans" numbered 1, 2, 3 and 86. The detailed assumptions and interpretations that were provided to officials were set out in my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary's reply to the hon. Member of today. It is not the normal working practice to keep a record of the time spent in providing factual information to Ministers and it is not therefore possible to offer a reliable estimate of costs involved.

  Hong Kong Governor
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what allowances are paid to the Governor of Hong Kong; and how they are treated for tax purposes. [9141]

  Mr. Hanley
  The Governor, like his predecessors, receives entertainment, education and leave allowances from the Hong Kong Government. These allowances are not subject to Hong Kong tax.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the current salary paid to the Governor of Hong Kong; and what tax treatment applies to that salary. [9142]

  Mr. Hanley
  The Governor's current salary, paid by the Hong Kong Government, is HK$3,036,000 per annum, equivalent to about £237,000 at present exchange rates. This figure is set at 125 per cent. of the Hong Kong Chief Secretary's salary. The Governor's salary, like that of his predecessors, is not subject to Hong Kong tax. An independent review of the Governor's salary and tax position was commissioned in 1993, which recommended that there should be no change in the calculation of his salary or in its tax free status.

  Children (Payment of Airfares)
  Sir Alan Haselhurst
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many children under the age of 16 years had air fares subsidised(a) wholly and (b) partly by reason of their relationship to service personnel and employees of his Department for travel between the United Kingdom and (i) other EU

  491
  states and (ii) non-EU states in the last year for which information is available; and what was the total cost of the subsidy. [9321]

  Mr Hanley
  This Department does not distinguish by age between children in receipt of children's concessionary journeys. Officers serving overseas may claim the whole cost of no more than:three journeys a year for children in primary or secondary boarding school education;
  two journeys a year for unmarried children studying full-time for their first degree at university or college provided they have taken no more than one year away from full-time education;
  one journey a year for unmarried children under 21 who are unemployed or undergoing vocational training.

  In 1995–96, the last full year for which figures are available, this Department—diplomatic wing and Overseas Development Administration—paid for 145 air fares in respect of 120 children to EU countries, and for 1,091 air fares in respect of 728 children to non-EU countries. Total expenditure was £1,009,109.

  Hong Kong (Contracts)
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list those major contracts which will straddle the transition in Hong Kong which have been considered by the Sino-British joint liaison group, the date of their award, the successful contractor and the approximate value of the contract. [9607)

  Mr. Hanley
  The Sino-British joint liaison group has discussed a large number of contracts and franchises which will straddle the transition. These include contracts on infrastructure development such as for the new airport, and the provision of power and transport services. I will write to the hon. Member with a full list of the contracts, and, where known, the dates of their award, the name of the successful contractors, and the value of each contract. A copy of the letter will be placed in the Libraries of the House.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  National Lottery (Northern Ireland)
  Ms Mowlam
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage if she will list(a) the number of projects in Northern Ireland which have been given funding by the Millennium Commission and (b) the number of projects from Northern Ireland which are currently under consideration by the Millennium Commission. [3841]

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  This is a matter for the Millennium Commission. I shall write to the hon. Member in my capacity as chairman of the commission and place copies of my reply in the Libraries of the House.

  "New Labour's Public Expenditure Plans"
  Mr. Derek Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what costs quoted in the document, "New Labour's Public Expenditure Plans", were prepared in his Department; what detailed assumptions and interpretations were provided to officials in his 492
  Department to enable preparation of each cost; and what was the total cost to public funds of preparing each estimate. [6344]

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The Department of National Heritage, in conjunction with the Treasury, prepared factual material relating to costings published in "New Labour's Public Expenditure Plans" numbered 54 and 55. The detailed assumptions and interpretations that were provided to officials are set out in my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary's reply to the hon. Member of today. It is not the normal working practice to keep a record of the time spent in providing factual information to Ministers.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Web Site
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what plans he has to open his own web site. [9438]

  The Deputy Prime Minister
  The matter is under consideration.

  Legislation
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many items of legislation relating to his Department have been repealed since January 1994; how many statutory instruments were introduced during the same period; and how many of the latter were(a) deregulatory and (b) fee orders. [9374]

  Mr. Bates
  An analysis of new regulations introduced by all Departments during 1994 and 1995 is given in the table. By the end of 1996 the total number of deregulatory orders will have risen to 1,000. Comprehensive information about the number of other regulations is only gathered after the end of the year. A fuller analysis of regulations made during 1996 will be carried out as soon as the necessary information is available from HMSO and will be provided to the hon. Member.

  1994

  1995

  Deregulatory measures

  218

  151

  NHS Trusts

  269

  176

  Fees and local provisions

  188

  152

  EU and international obligations

  151

  140

  Other (possible impact on business)

  141

  93

  Other (no impact on business)

  500

  692

  Commencement orders, Orders in Council and others not subject to Parliamentary procedures

  1,867

  1,963

  A list of regulations repealed or amended since 1993 under the Government's deregulation initiative as at April 1996 was placed in the House Libraries in May. A revised list of the 1,000 regulations repealed or amended by the end of December will be published early in the new year.

  No. 2 Marsham Street
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a progress report on the future of No. 2 Marsham street. [8126]
  493
  Mr. Freeman
  Responsibility for the use of No. 2 Marsham street has been delegated under the terms of its framework document to the Property Advisers to the Civil Estate under its chief executive, Mr. Neil Borrett. The agency is therefore responding to the question.

  Letter from N. E. Borrett to Mr. Harry Greenaway, dated 13 December 1996:
  The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has asked me to write to you in response to your Parliamentary Question regarding the future of 2 Marsham Street.
  The decision to demolish 2 Marsham Street was announced by the Secretary of State for the Environment in February 1992. The current occupants, the Department of the Environment, are to relocate to Ashdown House and Eland House in Victoria following the completion of fitting out works now in progress. These moves are likely to be completed around Easter 1997. The other occupants of 2 Marsham Street, the Department of Transport, were successfully relocated to Great Minster House in 1995.
  An international urban design competition was held earlier this year to produce designs which will guide the master planning for the future redevelopment of the site. Entrants were asked to submit designs which promoted a mixture of uses, make effective use of the available space and related well with the site's urban context. The results of the competition were announced by the Deputy Prime Minister in October. Work is planned to start on the demolition of 2 Marsham Street in April 1997 and to be completed in the Autumn of 1998, following which the site will be redeveloped for Government use if there is a requirement or sold.

TREASURY

  "New Labour's Public Expenditure Plans"
  Mr. Derek Foster
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what interpretations or assumptions were made in costing the spending commitments described as having been made by the Labour party in the document, "New Labour's Public Expenditure Plans"; and if the same interpretations and assumptions were adopted by each Government Department. [6338]

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The interpretations and assumptions identified by Ministers, assisted by their special advisers, are set out for each costing. These interpretations and assumptions were used by all Government Departments. In addition, general guidance was provided as set out in my separate written answer of today. Final responsibility for the judgments made in the document "New Labour's Public Expenditure Plans" rests with Treasury Ministers.

  FOREIGN OFFICE

  1. Increase Overseas Aid
  The cost of restoring the Overseas Aid budget to the same percentage of GDP as in 1979.

  2. Reverse cuts in the World Service and British Council
  The cost of restoring funding to the BBC World Service and the British Council to the level in 1995–96 in real terms.

  3. Rejoin UNESCO
  The cost of rejoining UNESCO.

  MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE FISHERIES AND FOOD

  4. Introduce an early retirement scheme for farmers
  The cost of the United Kingdom taking up the CAP early retirement scheme, assuming a 25 per cent take up amongst eligible farmers.

  5. Increase the number of state vets
  The cost of employing the same number of veterinary staff as in 1979.
  494
  6. Create more Environmentally Sensitive Areas
  The cost of a 10 per cent. increase in the current provision for ESAs.

  DEPARTMENT OF TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  7. Establish Regional Development Agencies in England

  The cost of:
  8 English regional development agencies each with an annual administrative cost equivalent to that of the Welsh Development Agency.

  The RSA budget to be increased overall so that England receives as generous a sum in relation to its proportion of total UK unemployment as the average of the Scottish and Welsh take.

  8. Establish a Business Development Bank

  The cost of a Business Development Bank on the same basis as the proposal from the Union of Independent Companies in 1993.

  9. Introduce New Technology Trusts
  Assume that the "trusts" provide more subsidy for R&D—about £15 million—less the costs of the existing Innovation Counsellors included in Business Links.

  10. Introduce a Venture Capital Guarantee Scheme
  The cost of a 10 per cent. increase in the Loan Guarantee Scheme.

  88. Implement the Parental Leave Directive
  The cost to the public sector of implementing the parental leave directive.

  DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT

  11. Restore public ownership of the railways
  The cost of a complete takeover of Railtrack by the Government assuming a 30 per cent. premium over the market price and external financing requirements to service debt and take account of forward investment plans.

  12. Provide new investment in railway safety

  The cost of:

  1. Installation, operation and maintenance of Automatic Train Protection

  2. Replacing 25 per cent. of carriages.

  13. Build more high speed rail links
  The cost of modernising the Great Western line (which runs from London to Cardiff) based on the CBI's estimate for electrification in their report "Winning Ways", 18 July 1996.
  The cost of modernising the London to Norwich line and the Bristol to Penzance lines based on the cost per mile of modernising the East Coast Main Line at 1996–97 prices.

  14. Reduce bus and rail fares in London

  The cost of:
  A 10 per cent. reduction in LT fares.
  A 10 per cent. reduction in NSE fares.

  15. Provide more investment in buses
  The cost of an increase of 10 per cent. in Government support for local bus services.

  16. Reduce freight track access charges
  The cost of a 20 per cent. reduction in freight track access charges on the assumption that Railtrack has been renationalised.

  17. Invest in a network of freight terminals
  The cost of doubling the existing 5 Channel Tunnel freight terminals.

  DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT

  18. Increase spending on house building
  The increase in public spending if the stock of set aside receipts are released over five years and no set aside applies to new receipts.
  495
  19. Return business rates to local control
  That in each year from 1997–98 to 2001–02, councils will choose to increase net revenue spending by 1 per cent. more than it would otherwise have been increased.
  That the increase will be financed by additional increases in council tax and business rates, and that the percentage increase in each will be the same.
  That the reserve powers to cap which Labour propose to retain would only bite on the dozen or so highest spenders, and so would only minimally affect overall spending.

  20. End Council Tax capping
  That in each year from 1997–98 to 2001–02, councils will choose to increase net revenue spending by 1 per cent. more than it would otherwise have been increased.
  That the increase will be financed by additional increases in council tax and business rates, and that the percentage increase in each will be the same.
  That the reserve powers to cap which Labour propose to retain would only bite on the dozen or so highest spenders, and so would only minimally affect overall spending.

  21. Set up mortgage rescue scheme
  The cost of providing extra grant to housing associations to enable them to buy up the property of people facing repossession. However, assume that only half choose to take advantage of the scheme.

  22. End CCT in local government
  The loss of expected future savings made from Compulsory Competitive tendering in local government.

  23. Establish English Regional Assemblies
  The cost of nine regional chambers with 50 members on average allowances of £2,500 and 50 support staff with average staff costs of £40,000 (including premises costs).

  24. Establish a London authority

  The cost of a strategic authority with:

  1. 64 councillors.

  2. A referendum.

  3. Elections every 4 years.

  HOME OFFICE

  25. Establish a network of women's refuges
  The cost of a network of women's refuges based on the following assumptions:

  1. Refuge services cost £12,000 to £13,000 per family per annum (Women's Aid Federation report published in 1994).

  2. One off Capital costs per refuge between £34,000 to £52,000 (London Housing Unit Report).

  3. An extra 2,000 family bedspaces estimated on the basis of a recommendation by the Home Affairs Select Committee.

  26. End the privatisation of prisons

  The cost of:

  1. Returning the four private sector prisons to the public sector.

  2. Ending the contracting out of education.

  3. Ending the contracting out of IT.

  4. Ending the contracting out of seven court escort areas.

  5. Returning the DCMF prisons to the public sector.

  6. Ending market testing in the Home Office.

  89. Provide referendums on voting reform and a Scottish Parliament

  The cost of:

  (A) a UK wide referendum; and

  (B) a referendum in Scotland.

  496
  LEGAL DEPARTMENTS

  27. Improve access to Legal Aid
  The cost of reinstating the changes in eligibility since 1992.

  28. Reform the Crown Prosecution Service
  The additional costs associated with providing staff for each of the 43 police areas.

  29. Establish a community legal service
  The additional cost of employing the equivalent of 1½ salaried lawyers in each of the Citizens' Advice Bureaux, assuming some savings in the legal aid budget.

  30. Change the design of court buildings
  The cost of refurbishing Crown Courts and the larger magistrates courts, which have not already provided separate waiting facilities for witnesses and victims.

  31. Introduce fast track sentencing for persistent young offenders
  The cost of fast track sentencing for persistent young offenders.

  DEPARTMENT FOR EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  32. Introduce sabbaticals for teachers
  The cost of teachers with 10 years' service taking one sabbatical of one third of a year and the cost of teachers with 15 years or more service taking one sabbatical of a full year.

  33. Introduce a new student loans scheme
  The additional cost of extending student loans to cover the maintenance grant and to include fees and maintenance of part-time Higher Education students, assuming that the number of students entering Higher Education is not affected and that loan take up also remains unchanged (at 75 per cent.).

  34. Double the number of students in higher education
  The fifth year cost of a programme to steadily increase student numbers that would, after 20 years, have doubled the (percentage) participation rate among young people in full-time higher education.

  35. Expand post-16 education
  The additional cost of all 16 and 17 year olds who are currently not in any education staying on in full-time education in secondary schools.

  36. Create a nursery place for every 3 year old
  The cost of providing a nursery place for every 3 year old assuming that the voucher mechanism is used, that the value of the voucher is the same as for four year olds and the funding can be clawed back from local authorities in the same way as for 4-year olds.

  37. Provide access to a lap top computer for every child
  The cost of supplying one new lap top computer for 1 in 3 primary pupils over 8 years old and 1 in 3 secondary pupils if the computers cost about £1,000 each.

  38. Increase capital spending on schools
  The cost of increasing capital spending by £3.2 billion over 10 years by allowing schools to borrow the money from the banks, without taking account of interest rates.

  39. Cable up every school-the cost of computer equipment and training

  1. The cost of providing multimedia computers and Internet links to all schools assuming that BT pay the line, connection and on-line costs.

  2. The additional cost of 2½ days training per teacher.

  3. Assume that in secondary schools there would need to be one multimedia PC for every 10 pupils which would need to be networked throughout the school. In addition there would be one room with 30 PCs in each school. One in ten of the new computers would be connected to a good quality printer and to the Internet via an ISDN line. Each primary school would have one multimedia PC in each classroom with an extra three in each school, e.g. for the library. One computer in each school would be linked to the Internet.

  497
  40. Introduce a literacy guarantee at age 7
  The cost of reintroducing the Reading Recovery Programme and extending it nationally.

  41. Reduce class sizes for 5, 6 and 7 year olds

  1. The cost of reducing class sizes to 30 or under for 5, 6 and 7 year olds.

  2. Take a mid-point estimate of the range of possible costs.

  42. Provide better teacher training
  The cost of one day's extra training and supply cover per year for each teacher in maintained schools.

  43. Establish intensive literacy summer schools

  1. 300,000 pupils attend a 3 weeks summer school each year.

  2. Pupils are taught in groups of 10 for 3 hours each day.

  3. The cost of overheads is calculated in the same way as the ratio of overheads to teachers' salaries in LEA spending on schools.

  4. Teachers can be recruited at the standard term-time supply rates.

  44. Take steps to tackle youth employment

  1. Each unemployed person receives on average £60 per week in benefits.

  2. Each person offered a placement accepts it and completes a full six months.

  3. 5 per cent. of participants leave the count and incur no further costs, 60 per cent. of those remaining receive wage subsidies, 20 per cent. enter training, 10 per cent. enter a placement with the voluntary sector and 10 per cent. with the Environmental task force.

  4. It costs £2,000 to provide a placement in the voluntary or environmental task force—in line with the former Community Action Programme—and to fund a place in education/training.

  45. Introduce a £75/week incentive for the long term unemployed
  The cost of a £75 a week incentive which lasts 26 weeks for those unemployed over two years assuming no increase in the number of people getting work.

  48. Re-establish the Community Action Programme
  The cost of re-establishing the Community Action programme at its 1995–96 level.

  49. Provide extra support to redundant workers
  The cost of giving everyone who becomes redundant and joins the claimant count a place on Job Search Plus, as a replacement to the existing Job Search Plus scheme.

  50. Provide better careers advice
  The cost of 2 per cent. of the employed population having a full interview with a trained careers officer and a booklet.

  51. Establish a University for Industry
  The cost of an initial intake of 30,000 students based on the costs of the Open University.

  52. Make the Re-Employment service available to non-working women
  The cost of providing access to the Employment Service on a voluntary basis to non-working women who are not registered unemployed.

  53. provide job advocates for the long term unemployed
  The cost of extending the current "1–2–1" scheme to all people over 25 who complete one year in unemployment.

  DEPARTMENT FOR NATIONAL HERITAGE

  54. Introduce a national network of Millennium Volunteers
  The cost of giving 100,000 young people each year a place as a Millennium Volunteer on the same basis as the Environmental Task Force, being paid the equivalent of benefit (£60/week) plus £20. Also assume that it costs an extra £2,000 to provide each place, in line with the costs of the former Community Action Programme.
  498
  55. Abolish admission charges to national museums
  The cost of ending admission charges to museums and galleries funded by the Department of National Heritage.

  56. Abolish the internal market in the NHS
  The cost of abolishing the internal market in the NHS assuming that the average annual efficiency gain returned to the level before the reforms.

  57. Withdraw PEI from the NHS
  The cost of replacing private sector spending on Department of Health capital projects with public sector spending.

  58. Introduce GP commissioning
  The net cost of introducing GP commissioning and abolishing GP fundholding.

  59. Increase spending on community care
  The cost of £135 million extra spending on community care in 1993 upraled to 1996–97 prices.

  60. Reintroduce a regional health structure
  The cost of reintroducing the old Regional Health Authorities.

  62. End CCT in the NHS
  The loss of savings from compulsory competitive tendering in the NHS.

  63. Phase out private provision from the NHS The loss of net income generated by pay beds.

  DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SECURITY

  64. Reduce the benefit tapers

  The cost of
  1. (A) a reduction in the Family Credit taper from 70 per cent. to 40 per cent.
  (B) a reduction in the Housing Benefit taper from 65 per cent. to 40 per cent.

  and
  2. (A) a reduction in the Family Credit taper from 70 per cent. to 30 per cent
  (B) a reduction in the Housing Benefit taper from 65 per cent. to 30 per cent.

  65. Introduce a Pension Entitlement/Minimum Guaranteed Income for Pensioners
  1. The cost of a 100 per cent. take up of Income Support and the abolition of all capital rules, except those in Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit, with a 100 per cent. taper.

  and
  2. A Minimum Guaranteed Income for pensioners set at £80/week with a 100 per cent. taper.

  66. Abolish the "16 hour rule"

  1. The cost of making any student other than those undertaking full-time courses in higher education eligible for JSA.

  2. Take a mid-point estimate of the range of costs.

  67. Allow local benefit decisions

  1. The cost of paying 500,000 unemployed claimants a year their income from JSA 6 months in advance.

  2. In 20 per cent. of cases, this money has to be repaid again since it is lost by the recipient.

  68. Abolish the Jobseeker's Allowance
  The cost of abolition of the JSA.

  69. Introduce a maintenance disregard against Income Support
  The cost of a £20 maintenance disregard against Income Support.

  70. Allow an Income Support carry over
  Assume that anyone unemployed for 6 months or more and in receipt of means-tested JSA will receive payments at the same rate for four weeks after taking a job.
  499
  71. Provide work help for lone parents

  The cost of:

  (a) giving Lone parents on Family Credit free school meals.

  (b) giving Lone parents on Family Credit a £10 per week disregard for work related expenses.

  72. Increase the take up of Family Credit
  An increase in the take up of Family Credit to 96 per cent.

  73. Introduce a JET scheme
  The cost of a JET scheme for lone parents similar to the Australian JET scheme.

  74. Encourage those on benefit to do voluntary work
  The cost of 1 in 12 unemployed people doing voluntary work assuming that they stay on benefit for four weeks longer than they would otherwise have done.

  75. Introduce a Disabled Rights Bill
  The cost of a Disability Rights Commission plus the cost to:

  (A) reduce from 20 to 5 the number of employees used to define those small employers exempt from the DDA's employment rights.

  (B) extend the DDA to cover those wrongly perceived to have a substantial disability.

  76. Allow unemployed people to borrow against future earnings

  1. The cost of giving 50 per cent. of people on JSA for over a year a £300 loan.

  2. In 20 per cent. of those cases the money is not repaid. In the remaining 80 per cent. of cases, the money is repaid over an average 2 year period.

  77. Introduce budgeting loans for the low paid

  1. The cost of extending the Social Fund to Family Credit recipients.

  2. Assume that 30 per cent. of households on Family Credit use the fund each year.

  78. Introduce Income Support protection
  The cost of providing an automatic re-entitlement to Income Support at the claimant's previous rate if the job ends within six months.

  79. Introduce an income disregard for the wives of unemployed men
  The cost of allowing any couple, in which one member of the couple declares themselves to be unemployed, to disregard an extra £5 in earnings in addition to the existing £10 disregard.

  80. Increase the disregard in the JSA
  The cost of doubling the disregard in JSA to £10 a week.

  APPENDIX 1. Introduce a flexible decade of retirement
  The cost of a full basic pension payable from the age of 60 assuming that the same percentage of eligible people claim the pension from the new state pension age as currently do so.

  SCOTTISH OFFICE

  81. Increase tree cover
  The cost of extending tree cover by 50 per cent. by 2010.

  82. Establish a Scottish Parliament
  The cost of the level of provision planned by the then Government in the run up to 1979, taking account of the Scottish Constitutional Convention proposals published in 1995.

  83. End the sale of Forestry Commission land
  The loss of expected receipts from the sale of Forestry Commission land.

  TREASURY

  85. Introduce a National Minimum Wage

  The estimated gross increase in the public sector pay bill assuming a Minimum Wage set at £4.00 per hour with a 50 per cent. restoration of differentials across the entire earnings distribution, using the 1995 New Earnings Survey.
  500
  87. Increase funding on Trans European Networks
  The cost of the European Commission's recent proposal to increase spending on TENs.
  In the case of the following costings Treasury Ministers accepted Labour's own estimate of the costs:

  46. Broaden the take up of Investors in People

  47. Introduce Learn as you Earn Smartcards

  61. Cut waiting lists

  In the case of No. 84, "Establish a Welsh Assembly", the estimate was made by the Secretary of State for Wales.
  In the case of No. 86, "Establish a European Recovery Fund", Treasury Ministers took the figure of about £11 billion, the approximate UK share of a proposal for a European Recovery Fund which was supported by Labour MEPs in the European Parliament, and scaled this back to produce a costing of £250 million a year over five years.

  Mr. Foster
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what guidance was given to civil servants in respect of assembling the factual material to facilitate the costings of the public expenditure commitments described as having been made by the Labour party in terms of territorial. bases, price level and first or four-year commitment, including possible overlaps and other similar costings. [6339]

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The costings were conducted in accordance with the guidance on costing Opposition policy which was published as a memorandum submitted by the Cabinet Secretary to the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee in March 1990, reproduced in "Guidance on Guidance: An index of Useful Documents" issued in February 1996 and available in the Library of the House. In addition, Ministers provided the following general framework to civil servants in respect of assembling the factual material.

  GUIDANCE ON COSTINGS

  Introduction
  This note explains the basis on which proposals should be costed. It is important that all proposals are costed on a consistent basis.
  2. There may be some proposals for which a costing consistent with this guidance would be inappropriate. In such cases, please contact the Special Adviser to the Chief Secretary to agree an alternative basis.

  Which year?
  3. Policy proposals which involve an ongoing annual cost should be costed in year 5, in 1996–97 prices.
  4. Where year 5 gives a misleading impression of the cost—because the cost builds up rapidly after that, or is much higher before year 5, that should be indicated separately.

  One-off costs
  5. All costs are annual costs. Where proposals involve a one-off cost—such as the purchase of shares in a privatised industry—it should be marked clearly as a one-off cost in 1996–97 prices. That cost will be assumed to be spread over the 5 years of the Parliament (that is, a fifth of the one-off cost will be added to the annual cost in year 5).

  Changes from plans
  6. The costs should be expressed in terms of changes from current policies assuming that none of the other proposals to be costed are implemented. They should be defined as additions to GGE (broadly, central and local government spending including support for public corporations). The costs need not distinguish spending inside and outside the Control Total.
  501
  Revenue effects
  7. Only the effects on General Government Expenditure should be included. If there are additional offsetting effects on revenues or on public corporations' borrowing, these should he identified separately, but not included in the costings.

  Offsetting changes in expenditure
  8. If a proposal would automatically and intrinsically lead to an offsetting reduction to spending elsewhere—such as benefit savings from putting unemployed people into a training programme—the proposal should be shown net of any changes to other spending programmes.

  Phased costs
  9. If a proposal is to "phase in" a policy then it should be assumed that this will be phased in over 5 years.
  10. Policies which would be implemented only "as far and as fast as resources allow" should not be phased in, but calculated as if they were implemented immediately.

  Behavioural effects
  11. Behavioural effects should not he included unless they are intrinsic to the proposal. For example, the cost of allowing local authorities to spend capital receipts should not assume that capital disposals will increase. However, the cost of lifting capping would include an assumption that some local authorities would increase spending above their existing capping limits.

  Prices
  12. All costings should be shown in 1996–97 prices.
  13. If it is necessary to assume a price level to calculate the costing, it should be assumed that prices will grow by 2 per cent. a year from 1997–98.
  14. If other macroeconomic assumptions are required, they should be consistent with the 1996–97 FSBR. If assumptions are required that are not included in the FSBR, they should be agreed with the Chief Secretary's Special Adviser.

  EU-related costs
  15. Any proposal involving expenditure from the European Union budget should take account of the effect on the overall level of the EU Budget, the UK contribution and the abatement. Please discuss any costings involving European Union expenditure with the Chief Secretary's Special Adviser.

  Territorial consequentials
  16. The costings should include any consequentials in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland of policy changes in England. In the case of Social Security costings, there is a separate page to add in the costs of pledges for Northern Ireland. If you need assistance calculating these, please contact the Chief Secretary's Special Adviser.

  Mr. Foster
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was(a) the cost to his Department and (b) the overall cost of the exercise to cost the spending commitments described as having been made by the Labour party in the document "New Labour's Public Expenditure Plans", published on 20 November. [6336]

  Mr. Waldegrave
  It is not the normal working practice to keep a record of the time spent in providing factual information to Ministers and it is not therefore possible to offer a reliable estimate of the costs involved.

  Mr. Foster
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what scrutiny over the exercise to cost what were termed Labour party public expenditure commitments was carried out by the Treasury; and what criteria were used when checking consistency with other available estimates of the costs. [6340]

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The exercise was carried out in accordance with the published guidance on the procedure for costing policies of opposition parties. Treasury 502
  Ministers, assisted by their special advisers, in conjunction with Ministers and special advisers from other Departments, were responsible for identifying the text of commitments together with any further interpretations or assumptions necessary to allow the commitments to be costed. Treasury officials, in conjunction with officials from other Departments, were responsible for providing factual material. Final responsibility for the judgments made in the document "New Labour's Public Expenditure Plans" rests with Treasury Ministers.

  Mr. Foster
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if(a) Ministers, (b) their special advisers and (c) civil servants, identified the text of spending commitments described as having been made by the Labour party in the document "New Labour's Public Expenditure Plans", published on 20 November. [6337]

  Mr. Waldegrave
  In accordance with the guidance, Ministers and their special advisers identified the text of commitments. To the best of my knowledge, civil servants other than special advisers did not identify the text of the commitments.

  Mr. Foster
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to what extent the factual material provided by civil servants for preparation of the document "New Labour's Public Expenditure Plans" was altered by Ministers or special advisers; and what guidance was given about reconciling differences in costings. [6341]

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The costings published in "New Labour's Public Expenditure Plans" are consistent with the factual material provided by civil servants on the basis of assumptions made by Ministers.

  In one case—the cost of establishing the Welsh Assembly—the estimate was made by the Secretary of State for Wales. In two cases—the cost of reducing benefit tapers and the introduction of a maintenance disregard against income support—the figures were calculated in cash terms rather than in real terms. Consequently these figures should have been slightly lower than quoted in the document. The figure for benefit tapers should have been £1.8 billion rather than £2.0 billion and the figure for the maintenance disregard against income support should have been £180 million rather than £200 million. In another case, namely the cost of an increase in funding on trans-European networks, the figure was calculated in ecus rather than in pounds. The annual cost should therefore have been £20 million rather than £27 million.

  Unemployment
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the number of people out of work in the European Union as a whole on the basis of(a) benefit claimant count, (b) International Labour Organisation definitions and (c) the labour force survey definition. [7233]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the chief executive of the Office for National Statistics. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.
  503
  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. Austin Mitchell, dated 17 December 1996:
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer has asked me to reply as the Director of the Office for National Statistics to your recent question on the level of unemployment in the European Union.
  Most European Union countries produce on administrative-based and a survey-based measure of unemployment. The benefit claimant count is the administrative measure of unemployment that applies to the United Kingdom. Because the administrative definitions of unemployment differ form country to country, the Office for National Statistics does not compile EU unemployment totals on this basis.
  The Statistical office of the European Community (SOEC) published ILO based levels of unemployment derived from the Labour Force Surveys of its member countries. The latest figures from this source show that in spring 1995 there were 17.8 million people unemployed in the European Union.
  SOEC also produce a monthly estimate of the level of ILO unemployment in the EU. These estimates are based on results from the spring 1995 Labour Force Surveys which are extrapolated to monthly (or quarterly) administrative unemployment statistics. The most recent estimate gives a figure of 18.1 million people ILO unemployed in September 1996.
  Enclosed for your information is the latest edition of the booklet How Exactly is Unemployment Measured?, copies of which are also available in the House of Commons Library.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) how many claimants have been recorded as experiencing at least one spell of unemployment in each jobcentre area since April 1992; [8304]

  (2) how many claimants have been recorded as experiencing at least one spell of unemployment in Darlington since April 1992. [8305]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  [holding answer 10 December 1996]The information requested falls within the responsibility of the Chief Executive of the Office for National Statistics. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. Alan Milburn, dated 17 December 1996:
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer has asked me to reply as the Director of the Office for National Statistics to your recent question on how many claimants have experienced at least one spell of claimant unemployment in each Jobcentre area, in particular the Darlington area, since April 1992.
  Information for each Jobcentre area could only be provided at disproportionate cost. However, since 1 April 1992, an estimated 20,760 claimants have experienced at least one spell of claimant unemployment at the Darlington Employment Service Jobcentre.

  Economic and Finance Council
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer to the hon. member for Southport (Mr. Banks) of 4 December,Official Report, column 648–49, on the Ecofin of 2 December, what matters were put to the vote; how the United Kingdom voted; and if he will place in the Library all documents tabled at the meeting. [8608]

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  None of the items on the main agenda for the Ecofin Council of 2 December were put to the vote. No papers were tabled at the meeting, but as I noted in my answer of 4 December, several papers were discussed. A number of "A" points were also agreed at the meeting without, in line with normal practice, a formal vote on them being taken. Details of these points are given 504
  in the Council secretariat press release, document 12212/96, which will be placed in the House as soon as it is available. All the papers considered at Ecofin which were eligible for scrutiny have been deposited with the House.

  Employment (York)
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will name the jobcentres within the York travel-to-work area; and if he will list the number of people in(a) full-time and (b) part-time employment in the York travel-to-work area (i) in April 1992 and (ii) currently. [8531]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the chief executive of the Office for National Statistics. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr Hugh Bayley, dated 17 December 1996:
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer has asked me to reply as the Director of the Office for National Statistic to your recent question on jobcentres and the number of people in full-time and part-time employment in the York travel-to-work area.
  There are to jobcentres in the York travel-to-work area. They are Clifford Street and Stonebow. The available information showing the levels of employment in the York travel-to-work area is for employees and is at September 1991 and September 1993. This is shown in the table below.

  Employees in the York travel-to-work area: at September

  Full-time

  Part-time

  All

  1991

  64,200

  27,900

  92,100

  1993

  62,400

  28,800

  91,200

  Source:

  Census of employment, ONS.

  Food Poisoning
  Mr. Etherington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the number of days at work which were lost in 1995 due to food poisoning from(a) salmonella, (b) campylobacter, (c) listeria, (d) E. coli 0157 and (e) other causes; and if he will make a statement. [9139]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the chief executive of the Office for National Statistics. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. Bill Etherington, dated 17 December 1996:
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer has asked me to reply as the Director of the Office for National Statistics to your recent question on estimates of the number of days lost due to different types of food poisoning.
  This information is not available. The Labour Force Survey collects information on sickness absence, but does not ask respondents about the diagnosis of the cause of their sickness absence.

  Running and Operating Costs Limits
  Mr. Matthew Banks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the final outturn for 1995–96 for(a) each running costs limit and (b) the Ministry of Defence's operating costs limit. [9743]

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The final outturn for 1995–96 for each running costs limit and the Ministry of Defence's operating costs limit are shown in the table.

  £000

  Gross running costs limits

  Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Diplomatic Wing)

  505,913

  Overseas Development Administration

  71,790

  Intervention Board Executive Agency

  32,377

  Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

  309,252

  Department of Trade and Industry

  350,826

  Office of Fair Trading

  18,446

  Office of Telecommunications

  9,092

  Office of Gas Supply

  8,374

  Office of Electricity Regulation

  10,694

  Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service

  22,253

  Department of Transport

  395,188

  Office of Passenger Rail Franchising

  5,908

  Office of the Rail Regulator

  8,520

  Department of the Environment

  215,492

  Health and Safety Commission

  167,369

  Property Holdings

  17,891

  PSA Services

  36,238

  Office of Water Services

  8,893

  Home Office

  1,717,998

  Charity Commission

  21,356

  Lord Chancellor's Department

  430,943

  Northern Ireland Court Service

  17,898

  Public Record Office

  26,396

  Crown Prosecution Service

  223,890

  Serious Fraud Office

  10,285

  Treasury Solicitor's Department

  26,873

  Crown Office

  35,394

  Department for Education and Employment

  1,338,297

  Office of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools in England

  28,471

  Department of National Heritage

  28,097

  Office of the National Lottery

  2,061

  Department of Health

  228,270

  Office of Population Censuses and Surveys

  46,908

  Department of Social Security

  3,039,069

  Scottish Office

  325,177

  Scottish Courts Administration

  40,846

  Scottish Record Office

  5,151

  General Register Office for Scotland

  7,217

  Welsh Office

  74,983

  Office of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools in Wales

  3,374

  Northern Ireland

  773,734

  HM Treasury

  58,559

  HM Customs and Excise

  746,035

  Inland Revenue

  1,664,518

  Department for National Savings

  190,100

  Registry of Friendly Societies

  7,861

  National Investment and Loans Office

  1,217

  Central Statistical Office

  58,473

  Office of Public Service

  76,837

  Cabinet Office: Other Services

  41,935

  Security and Intelligence Services

  402,314

  Privy Council Office

  2,752

  Net running costs limits

  Wilton Park (FCO)

  692

  ADAS Agency (MAFF)

  8,716

  Central Science Laboratory (MAFF)

  0

  Central Veterinary Laboratory (MAFF)

  -7

  Veterinary Medicines Directorate (MAFF)

  0

  Central Services (DTI)

  0

  Laboratory of the Government Chemist (DTI)

  0

  National Engineering Laboratory (DTI)

  2

  National Physical Laboratory (DTI)

  0

  506

  £000

  Radiocommunications Agency (DTI)

  0

  Vehicle Certification Agency (DoT)

  0

  Transport Research Laboratory (DoT)

  0

  QE II Conference Centre (PH)

  5,630

  Building Research Establishment (DOE)

  0

  Ordnance Survey

  11,692

  Forensic Science Service (HO)

  144

  Historic Royal Palaces Agency (DNH)

  0

  NHS Estates Agency (DH)

  0

  Social Survey Division (OPCS)

  476

  Information Techonology Services Agency (DSS)

  0

  Resisters of Scotland

  0

  Valuation Office (IR)

  1,619

  Paymaster Agency

  0

  Government Actuary's Department

  600

  Civil Service College (OPS)

  -455

  Security Facilities Executive (OPS)

  3,707

  Driver and Vehicle Testing Agency (NI)

  -168

  Operating costs

  Ministry of Defence

  16,476,988

  Payment Performance
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he proposes to publish the league table of Departments' payment performance as announced in the Government response to the "Your Business Matters" conferences. [9949]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  Departments' performance in paying invoices within the agreed credit terms, or 30 days where no such terms exist, for the period 1 June to 31 August 1996 are contained in the following table:

  Per cent.

  National Investment and Loans Office

  100.0

  Office of Electricity Regulation

  100.0

  Privy Council Office

  100.0

  Defence Bills Agency

  99.7

  Department of National Savings

  99.6

  HM Land Registry

  99.6

  Office of Passenger Rail Franchising

  99.5

  Office of the Rail Regulator

  99.0

  Office for National Statistics

  98.6

  Exports Credit Guarantee Department

  98.3

  Office of the National Lottery

  98.2

  Office of Fair Trading

  98.0

  Department of Trade and Industry

  97.7

  Crown Prosecution Service

  96.8

  Registry of Friendly Societies

  96.8

  Office of Water Supply

  96.4

  Public Records Office

  96.2

  Health and Safety Executive

  95.8

  Office of Telecommunications

  95.5

  Department for Education and Employment

  95.3

  Registers of Scotland

  95.3

  Paymaster General

  95.2

  HM Treasury

  95.1

  Government Actuary's Department

  95.0

  Ordnance Survey

  95.0

  Scottish Office

  95.0

  Welsh Office

  94.7

  Northern Ireland Departments

  94.0

  Department of Social Security

  94.0

  Legal Secretariat to the Law Officers

  93.9

  Foreign and Commonwealth Office

  93.8

  Home Office

  93.3

  Royal Mint

  93.0

  Inland Revenue

  92.5

  Treasury Solicitors

  92.2

  507

  Per cent.

  Department of the Environment

  92.0

  Lord Chancellor's Department

  91.8

  Overseas Development Admin.

  91.6

  Crown Office Scotland

  91.5

  Forestry Commission

  91.1

  Department of Health

  89.3

  Charity Commissioners

  89.0

  Serious Fraud Office

  89.0

  Department of Transport

  87.8

  Intervention Board

  87.0

  Cabinet Office

  86.9

  National Heritage

  84.9

  HM Customs and Excise

  84.0

  Office of Gas Supply

  83.8

  Agriculture, Fisheries, and Food

  80.4

  Paracetamol
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the number of deaths in the past seven years in which(a) paracetamol was the only drug involved and (b) paracetamol was one of the drugs involved. [7508]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  [holding answer 9 December 1996]The information requested falls within the responsibility of the chief executive of the Office for National Statistics. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. Paul Flynn, dated 17 December 1996:
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer has asked me to reply as the Director of the Office for National Statistics to your recent question on how many deaths over the past seven years resulted from (a) paracetamol as the only drug and (b) paracetamol as one of the drugs involved
  The number of deaths associated with paracetamol reported to ONS over the past three years are shown in the attached table. The data for 1989 to 1992 are published, for each year separately, in Table 10 of Mortality statistics: injury and poisoning, England and Wales, series DH4, Nos. 16–18, copies of which are available in the House of Commons Library.
  The figures in brackets indicate the number of deaths with a mention of alcohol. These bracketed figures are already included in the unbracketed data and should not, therefore, be added to them.

  Deaths from paracetamol in England and Wales 1993–95

  1993

  1994

  1995

  Death by poisoning—accident

  Paracetamol only

  44 (9)

  40 (10)

  41 (6)

  Paracetamol with other drugs1

  42(18)

  54(16)

  70(21)

  Total

  86(27)

  94(26)

  111(27)

  Deaths by poisoning—suicide

  Paracetamol only

  67 (7)

  68 (5)

  77 (2)

  Paracetamol with other drugs1

  169(35)

  144(20)

  162(17)

  Total

  236(42)

  212(25)

  239(19)

  Deaths by poisoning—undetermined

  Paracetamol only

  62 (6)

  52 (5)

  72 (1)

  Paracetamol with other drugs1

  68(19)

  95(22)

  146(29)

  Total

  130(25)

  147(27)

  218(30)

  1 These include deaths from paracetamol-containing compounds.

  Aspirin
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many deaths have occurred, in the most recent five-year period for which statistics are available, as a result of the use of aspirin or aspirin-based products. [7500]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  [holding answer 9 December 1996]The information requested falls within the responsibility of the chief executive of the Office for National Statistics. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. Paul Flynn, dated 17 December 1996:
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer has asked me to reply as the Director of the Office for National statistics to your recent question on how many deaths occurred as a result of using aspirin or aspirin-based products.
  The table below sets out the numbers of deaths which were certified as due to salicylates (aspirin and related compounds) in the years 1991 to 1995. It includes deaths due to poisoning', and to adverse effects' of salicylates in normal use as underlying or secondary cause of death.

  Deaths from Salicvlates in England and Wales, 1991–95

  Year

  Poisoning

  Adverse effects

  1991

  51

  4

  1992

  46

  1

  1993

  46

  4

  1994

  36

  2

  1995

  31

  6

  1 International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision code 965.1

  2International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision code E935.1

  Hypothermia
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many pensioners have died in each year since 1992 as a result of hypothermia(a) nationally and (b) in the west midlands; and what was the percentage change from the previous year in each case. [7694]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  [holding answer 9 December 1996]The information requested falls within the responsibility of the chief executive of the Office for National Statistics. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. Jim Cunningham, dated 17 December 1996:
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer has asked me to reply as the Director of the Office for National Statistics to your recent question on how many pensioners died as a result of hypothermia (a) nationally (b) in the West Midlands; and the percentage change from the previous year.
  The figures are shown in the table below.

  Numbers of deaths with a mention of hypothermia in males aged 65 years and over and females aged 60 years and over

  Year

  England and Wales

  Percentage change

  West Midlands1

  Percentage change

  1992

  282

  -34

  28

  -49

  1993

  352

  25

  38

  36

  1994

  291

  -17

  31

  -18

  1995

  287

  -1

  36

  16

  1. International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision, code 991.6.

  1 Health Region of residence.

  Fixed Capital Formation
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what factors underlie his forecast in table 3.3 of the Red Book about growth in 1997 of gross domestic fixed capital formation in private dwellings and land. [8278]

  Mr. Waldegrave
  [holding answer 9 December 1996]Housing investment is expected to respond to the recovery in the housing market. This recovery is now well established. In the third quarter of this year the number of mortgage loans approved by banks and building societies was up by 28 per cent. on a year earlier, and in the three months to October turnover—as measured by particulars delivered at the Land Registry—was up by 19 per cent. on a year earlier. House prices in November were more than 7 per cent. higher than a year earlier. Housing starts have picked up in recent months, and this should be reflected in rising housing investment in 1997.

  Self-assessment
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list(a) how much has been spent on advertising and (b) how many inquiries have been received regarding the introduction of self-assessment; and in each case what were his initial estimates. [8274]

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 9 December 1996]So far, £13,365,724 has been spent on advertising and publicity support material for the self-assessment public information campaign. In total 368,563 people have sought further information by telephoning the information line, or by sending a in a coupon for press advertising. Initial estimates for the campaign budget were £25 million over three years and we remain within that budget. The number of responses to the information line have been three times greater than was originally estimated.

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many of the individuals appointed by his Department to public positions in the last year were first identified by the public appointments unit. [8551]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  [holding answer 10 December 1996]The Chancellor's Departments and agencies appointed 13 individuals to public positions in the last year from names first identified by the public appointments unit.

  Income Tax (Personal Allowance)
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the cost of increasing personal allowance on income tax to(a) £4,000, (b) £5,000, (c) £6,000, (d) £7,000 and (e) £8,000 in Scotland based on 1996–97 prices for each year from 1996–97 to 1999–2000; and in each case how many taxpayers would be removed from income tax altogether. [9079]

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 13 December 1996]It is not possible to provide a reliable breakdown below United Kingdom level for 1996–97. The latest available information is for 1994–95. The full-year cost of increasing the non-aged personal allowance in Scotland under the 1994–95 tax regime and at 1994–95 income levels is given in the table below. The numbers of taxpayers removed from income tax are also shown.510

  Increase non-aged personal allowance in Scotland from £3,445 to:

  Full year cost (£million)

  Number of taxpayers taken out of income tax (thousands)

  £4,000

  290

  100

  £5,000

  770

  260

  £6,000

  1,200

  400

  £7,000

  1,700

  540

  £8,000

  2,100

  710

  Inflation
  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the annual rate of inflation in April of (i) 1993, (ii) 1994, (iii) 1995 and (iv) 1996. [9133]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  [holding answer 16 December 1996]The annual rate of inflation—measured by the retail prices index excluding mortgage interest payments—in April 1993, 1994, 1995 and 1996 was 2.9 per cent. 2.3 per cent. 2.6 per cent. and 2.9 per cent. respectively.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Timms
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) which of the projects in the list entitled "Agreed Private Finance Initiative Projects" as of 26 November 1996, issued by the private finance unit, are signed projects; [9327]

  (2) if he will make a statement on (a) the cash sum attached to and (b) the projected duration of each project in the list entitled, "Agreed Private Finance Initiative Projects" as of 26 November 1996, issued by the private finance unit; [9329]

  (3) if he will place a copy of the list entitled "Agreed Private Finance Initiative Projects" as of 26 November 1996, issued by the private finance unit, in the Library; and if he will place updated lists in the Library on a monthly basis; [9328]

  (4) to whom (a) the list, "Agreed Private Finance Initiative Projects" as of 26 November 1996, issued by private finance unit, and (b) predecessor versions of the list have been issued; and if he will place a copy of the list in the Library. [9326]

  Mr. Jack
  [holding answer 16 December 1996]Of the projects listed in the document dated 26 November, Departments advised the Treasury that those which are signed are as follows;

  Signed

  Dartford Bridge

  Second Severn Bridge

  Skye Bridge

  Heathrow Express

  Royal Armouries

  NIRS2

  Northern Line Trains

  Greenwich Accommodation

  LISA IT project

  Bridgend Prison

  CTRL

  A69

  511

  A419

  M1-A1

  A1(M)

  Waltham Forest HAT

  German White Vehicles

  Fazakerley Prison

  A50

  Immigration IT

  OSIRIS (IT)

  BA/POCL

  A30

  University Hospital Wales

  MOD Handling Vehicles

  TAFMIS IT

  RAF White Vehicles

  Naval Recruitment and Training

  Lewisham DLR

  M40

  A19

  Lowdham Grange Prison

  Croydon Tramlink

  Norfolk and Norwich Hospital

  The list of 26 November represents a snapshot of significant PFI projects that individual departments have drawn to the attention of the Treasury's PFU. It was designed to provide an indication of the main areas of PH activity, and may not be fully comprehensive. However I will arrange for a copy to be placed in the Library. I will arrange for similar updated lists to be placed there on a quarterly basis which reflects the regularity with which this information is now collected. However, primary responsibility for detailed project, or sector specific, information remains with individual Departments.

  The cash sums alongside each project represents each Department's estimate on 26 November of expected capital investment associated with that particular project. The projected duration of each individual contract is not held centrally.

  The list is available on request form the Treasury PFU and forms part of an information pack which is sent to people expressing a general interest in PFI. The list is updated from time to time. A previous version was included in the press pack accompanying the recent private finance panel conference.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Legislation
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many items of legislation relating to his Department have been repealed since January 1994; how many statutory instruments were introduced during the same period; and how many of the latter were(a) deregulatory and (b) fee orders. [9364]

  Mr. Streeter
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given today by my hon. Friend the Paymaster General.

  Judges (Performance Tables)
  Mr. Patten
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will publish performance tables giving the number of cases heard by each judge in England and the number of occasions on which each judge had their decisions overturned on appeal. [9576]

  Mr. Streeter
  The question concerns a matter which has been assigned to the Court Service under the terms of its framework document. I have therefore asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from M. D. Huebner to Mr. John Patten, dated 17 December 1996:
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, has asked me to reply to your Question about the number of cases heard by each judge in England and the number of judges' decision overturned on appeal.
  These figures are not held centrally and could only be obtained at a disproportionate cost.

TRANSPORT

  "New Labour's Public Expenditure Plans"
  Mr. Derek Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what costs quoted in the document, "New Labour's Public Expenditure Plans," were prepared in his Department; what detailed assumptions and interpretations were provided to officials in his Department to enable preparation of each cost; and what was the total cost to public funds of preparing each estimate. [6350]

  Sir George Young
  The Department of Transport, in conjunction with the Treasury, prepared factual material relating to costings published in "New Labour's Public Expenditure Plans" numbered 11 to 17. The detailed assumptions and interpretations that were provided to officials are set out in my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary's answer to the hon. Member today. It is not the normal working practice to keep a record of the time spent preparing factual information to Ministers and it is not therefore possible to offer a reliable estimate of the costs involved.

  A13
  Ms Hodge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what is the(a) design life span and (b) functional life of the Movers Lane bridge on the A13; [8060]

  (2) when he expects the Renwick Road junction improvements on the A13 (i) will be started and (ii) completed; [8064]

  (3) what is the annual daily flow of vehicles using the A13 this year and in each of the previous five years; [8054]

  (4) what has been the cost of tendering the DBFO—design, build, finance and operate—improvements for the Roding Bridge and Movers Lane junctions on the A13; [8058]

  (5) when and for what reasons the decision was taken not to build the proposed underpass for the junction of Movers Lane/River Road on the A13; [8062]
  513
  (6) how many accidents have occurred in each of the last five years on (i) the Lodge Avenue flyover on the A13 and (ii) the Movers Lane/River Road flyover on the A13;

  (7) when the current traffic restrictions on the River Roding bridge and on the Movers Lane/River road on the A 13 will be lifted; [8061]

  (8) what plans he has to include a slip road in the realignment of the A13 at the junction of the Scrattons Farm estate and the A13; [8063]

  (9) what is the annual daily flow forecast to use the A13 in each of the next two years on (i) weekdays and (ii) weekends; [8056]

  (10) what is the annual daily flow of vehicles forecast to use the realigned A13 in the first year of the road opening for (i) weekdays and (ii) weekends; [8055]

  (11) what is the annual daily flow of vehicles using the A13 between the M25 and the A406 in the current year and in each of the previous five years on (i) weekdays and (ii) weekends. (8057]

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

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Ms Margaret Hodge, dated 17 December 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your recent questions about traffic flows, accident data and other associated issues on the A13.
  Tenders have yet to be invited for the A13 "Thames Gateway" DBFO project and therefore tendering costs are not yet known. However, I am pleased to advise you that the Highways Agency has recently invited interest from potential bidders. This project includes the Roding Bridge strengthening. Movers Lane junction improvement and other maintenance and improvement schemes.
  The lane restrictions on the Roding Bridge and the weight restrictions on the Movers Lane/River Road flyover will remain in place until respectively the proposed bridge strengthening and junction improvement schemes have been implemented.
  The proposed underpass at the junction of the Al3 Movers Lane with River Road remains in the programme as part of the A13 Movers Lane junction improvement.
  The Movers Lane/River Road flyover was built in 1966 as a temporary structure with a minimum design life of fifteen years. Since 1991 vehicles using it have been restricted to 7.5 tonnes. It is well maintained and capable of serving its present function for at least another five years.
  For 1995, the annual average daily flow for all motor vehicles using the A13 between the M25 and the A406 ranged between 26,000 and 73,000 vehicles per day, with flows generally increasing toward the A406. Figures are only collected on a three year cycle and for 1992, they ranged between 23,000 and 66,000. Separate figures for weekdays and weekends are not available.
  Detailed forecasts for the existing A13 for each of the next two years are not available, but a number of factors will affect the growth of traffic on the Barking and Dagenham section of the A13. Current trends suggest that in outer London traffic growth generally could be in the order of 2%. a year.
  Traffic data regarding the annual average daily flow for all motor vehicles forecast to use the re-aligned Al3 in the first year of the road opening separated out for weekday and weekends is not available in the form requested. However, at the public inquiry in 1990, it was forecast that the transfer of traffic to the new A13 route would he in the region of 60% with 40% on the existing road. Given the 2 per cent growth figure mentioned above, traffic on the new road on opening would be in the region of 38,000 vehicles per day. The actual figure will depend upon the growth rates which occur and development which similarly may or may not occur.
  514
  In each of the last five years, accidents numbers for the Lodge Avenue Flyover and the Movers Lane/River Road Flyover are as follows:

  Year

  Number of personal injury accidents

  Lodge Avenue Flyover

  1991

  7

  1992

  5

  1993

  6

  1994

  4

  1995

  6

  1996

  12

  Movers Lane/River Road Flyover

  1991

  8

  1992

  3

  1993

  8

  1994

  4

  1995

  5

  1996

  11

  1 Up to August.

  The Highways Agency has no firm dates for the start and completion of the Renwick Road junction improvement scheme. This is a development-led scheme, which cannot commence until the developer has submitted proposals to the Highways Agency and these have been accepted.

  The A13 West of Heathway to Thames Avenue scheme, on which work has just started, will be connected to the existing Al3 Ripple Road at a new interchange. A link road will be built between this interchange and the Scrattons Farm Estate which will provide access to both the local and trunk road network.

  Nuclear Waste (Transportation)
  Dr. John Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to approve the arrangements for British Nuclear Fuels Ltd. to transfer crated plutonium contaminated material from its site at Drigg to the waste treatment complex at Sellafield; and if he will make a statement. [8911]

  Mr. Watts
  The arrangements will be approved when the small number of outstanding safety issues have been resolved to the Department's satisfaction. These are subject to ongoing discussions between the Department and BNFL.

  Utilities (Transport Schemes)
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to amend the regulations making utilities liable for 18 per cent. of the costs of diversionary works for major transport schemes. [9293]

  Mr. Watts
  I am discussing this issue with ministerial colleagues.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what contributions were made by utility companies towards the costs of diversionary works for major transport schemes, including street-running tramways, in each year since 1992. [9296]

  Mr. Watts
  This information is not held centrally. However, no contributions would have been made under the relevant provisions of the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 before they came into effect on 1 January 1993.

  Staff
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list for his Department(a) how many people in total are employed, (b) how many of the total number of staff are (i) male and (ii) female and (c) how many (I) men and (II) women are employed on a (1) full-time and (2) part-time basis. [9481]

  Mr. Bowis
  The figures as at 1 December 1996 are:

  Total

  (a) Number of employees

  13,419

  (b) (i) Number of males

  7,414

  (b) (ii) Number of females

  6,005

  (c) (I) (1) Number of full-time men

  7,233

  (c) (I) (2) Number of part-time men

  181

  (c) (II) (1) Number of part-time women

  4,477

  (c) (II) (2) Number of part-time women

  1,528

  Blackwall Tunnel
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what was the name of the company owning the vehicle which caused the closure of the Blackwall tunnel on 10 December and if he will make a statement; [9313]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the circumstances and consequences of the closure of the Blackwall tunnel on 10 December; and what estimate has he made of the likely cost of the incident to businesses in London arising from traffic congestion during that day; [9315]

  (3) what legal action he intends to take against the driver and owners of the vehicle which damaged the Blackwall tunnel on 10 December; [9314]

  (4) what damage was caused to the Blackwall tunnel by the incident on 10 December; and what estimate he has made of the likely cost of repair work. [9312]

  Mr. Bowis
  [holding answer 16 December 1996]I have asked the chief executive of the Highways Agency to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Mr. Lawrie Haynes to Mr. Tony Banks, dated 17 December 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your recent questions about the incident at the northern entrance to the Blackwall Tunnel on the 10th December.
  The circumstances on 10th December which resulted in the closure for some ten hours of the southbound Blackwall Tunnel are as follows. At approximately 2.30 pm the boom of a crane mounted on a lorry struck a sign gantry located 30 yards before the entrance of the southbound tunnel. No damage was caused to the tunnel itself, but the gantry was so badly damaged that it had to be removed completely. It took until just after midnight to complete this operation which necessitated the southbound tunnel being closed from 2.30 pm to 00.30 am. In addition the northbound tunnel had to be closed for about one hour while the central support was removed.
  The gantry carried essential lane-control signing used for operating the contraflow system during the morning peak, and without it two way traffic cannot operate safely. Manual control of the contra flow system is not a viable option for safety reasons.
  There was widespread traffic congestion in East London caused by the closure of the southbound tunnel. Some traffic diverted to the Dartford crossing and the Woolwich Ferry ran an extended service until 10.00 pm to assist with the diverted traffic. On subsequent
  516
  mornings there have also been queues approaching the northbound tunnel, as two way traffic has not been able to use the southbound tunnel.
  The Highways Agency recognises that this incident has caused considerable delays and inconvenience with a subsequent cost effect to businesses and has worked to bring the contraflow system back into operation at the earliest possible opportunity. We cannot make a realistic estimate of the losses.
  Estimates of repair costs are at this stage preliminary but demolition and the installation of a temporary and then a permanent gantry are likely to cost in excess of one hundred thousand pounds.
  The Highways Agency has, at present, no confirmed report of the name of the company owning the vehicle that caused the closure of the tunnel. A full report of the incident is awaited from the police. When we receive full details of the incident we intend to seek to recover the costs of a replacement gantry from the owner of the lorry involved.

  Air Service Negotiations
  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if his Department requested from the Civil Aviation Authority a balance of benefits analysis for the renegotiation of the United States-United Kingdom air service agreements, Bermuda 2, in 1995. [9187]

  Mr. Bowis
  The UK-US air negotiations in 1995 concerned small-scale changes to Bermuda 2 rather than a full renegotiation. The Department of Transport asked the Civil Aviation Authority to estimate the possible costs and benefits to UK airlines of certain specific features of the proposed deal, notably a modest relaxation of restrictions on flights to London from Chicago and Philadelphia, and some new code-sharing opportunities.

  Mr. Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if it is his Department's policy in the context of significant air service negotiations to request from the Civil Aviation Authority a balance of benefits analysis; [9189]

  (2) if he will list all the air service agreements negotiated over the last three years for which the Civil Aviation Authority was requested to provide a balance of benefits analysis. [9188]

  Mr. Bowis
  It is not the Department of Transport's policy to request an all-encompassing "balance of benefits" analysis from the Civil Aviation Authority before conducting air service negotiations, especially those which have the objective of general liberalisation. However, we regularly commission a cost-benefit analysis from the CAA when limited and specific commercial rights are under negotiation, and CAA staff are always invited to participate in air services negotiations, including preparatory UK delegation meetings.

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many European member states have negotiated with the United States open skies agreements which grant fifth freedom rights to United States carriers. [9114]

  Mr. Bowis
  [holding answer 13 December 1996]We understand that the US has reached such agreements with the following European countries:

  Austria

  Belgium

  Denmark

  517

  Finland

  Germany

  Iceland

  Luxembourg

  Netherlands

  Norway

  Sweden

  Switzerland.

  Mr. Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what representations his Department has made to the United States Government regarding the restrictions imposed on United Kingdom airlines within the United States aviation market; and if he will make a statement; [9113]

  (2) in what circumstances his Department will grant fifth freedom rights to United States carriers; and if he will make a statement; [9115]

  (3) what are the United Kingdom's objectives for the renegotiation of the US-UK air service agreements (Bermuda 2); and if he will make a statement. [9112]

  Mr. Bowis
  [holding answer 13 December 1996]The Secretary of State's objective in the current negotiations with the US on air services is to reach a liberal aviation arrangement to the benefit of the UK. Both access to the internal US market and fifth freedom rights are being discussed within the current negotiations.

  Road Safety Research
  Mr. Day
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will provide a list of research projects, together with their start and end dates, initiated or planned in preparation for the setting of road safety targets after the year 2000; and if he will provide a summary of the aims and the work being undertaken within each project. [9319]

  Mr. Bowis
  We have only one research project planned or in progress on road safety targets after the year 2000—"Analysis and Exposure Monitoring Requirements for Post 2000 Targets". The project started on 17 June 1996 and is due to end on 16 June 1998.

  The aim of this study is to provide analysis of past and future trends in casualty reductions in order to help develop soundly based new road safety targets post-2000.

  The research will involve a systematic analysis of trends in casualty numbers taking account of current assumptions about traffic growth, demographic change, and other relevant factors. Possible new measures for casualty reduction which would be required to achieve a new target will be evaluated and costed. It will also consider how a future target should be monitored and future requirements for vulnerable road user exposure data.

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the terms of reference are of the evaluation of the hazard perception testing working party set up by the road safety division of his Department; 'what its membership is; what progress it has made; and when it is expected to report. [9424]

  Mr. Bowis
  We are at present considering membership for an advisory group on the possible future use of hazard perception testing. Initial approaches have been made to 518
  several representative groups including: the Transport Research Laboratory, the Driving Standards Agency, DriveSafe Services Ltd. who administer the theory test for learner drivers, driver instruction bodies, the Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety, the Northern Ireland Driver and Vehicle Testing Agency, and other experts. There are no plans to ask any group to produce a report: the aim is to provide the Department with a source of advice.

  Legislation
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many items of legislation relating to his Department have been repealed since January 1994; how many statutory instruments were introduced during the same period; and how many of the latter were(a) deregulatory and (b) fee orders. [9370]

  Mr. Bowis
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster today.

  Road Vehicles (Pollution)
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what research he has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated on the feasibility of reducing the environmental disbenefits of current models of motor car. [9214]

  Mr. Bowis
  My Department has commissioned a number of research projects aimed at assessing and controlling the environmental impact of current models of cars. These are listed in the table and further details are available on the Department's internet web site at http://www.open.gov.uk/dotkvs/rv-res00.htm. On completion, all projects will be evaluated for cost effectiveness, practicality and, if appropriate, their wider application in an EU context.

  Reference

  Project title

  S010E/VB

  In-service emissions from current fleet

  S010K/VB

  In-service emissions testing of catalyst-equipped vehicles

  S360D/VB

  Detection of vehicles burning lubricating oil

  S031J/VB

  Road and tyre noise: collaboration to reduce tyre noise

  S030L/VB

  In-service noise testing

  S026F/VB

  Diesel smoke test procedures and meter specifications

  S260F/VB

  Vehicle fuel consumption and emissions forecasts

  S360B/VB

  Remote measurement of vehicle emissions

  S260H/VB

  Petrol and diesel emissions factors measurement

  S140A/VB

  Vehicle particulate emissions measurement

  Mr. Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the(a) feasibility and (b) desirability of encouraging industrial innovation to reduce the environmental disbenefits of current models of bus; and if he will make a statement. [9215]

  Mr. Watts
  There is no doubt that industrial innovation can help to reduce the environmental disbenefits of buses. This has already been demonstrated by the technological advances that are now being applied to new diesel engines in order to meet the tighter emission standards for heavy vehicles, including buses, that came into force on
  519
  1 October this year. My Department works closely with both our European partners and the European Commission to develop progressively tighter emissions standards, a strategy which is providing extremely successful in encouraging industrial innovation and results in significant reductions in emissions from all categories of vehicle.

  Coastguard Towing Vessels
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will place in the Library HM Coastguard's report on the winter trials of the emergency towing vessels stationed in Dover and Stornoway. [9224]

  Mr. Bowis
  HM Coastguard's report on winter trials of the emergency towing vessels stationed in Dover and Stornoway will be published very shortly, and a copy will then be placed in the Library.

  Lorry Drivers (Delays Abroad)
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations have been made to the Greek Government in respect of providing(a) protection, (b) freedom of movement and (c) compensation to British drivers. [9423]

  Mr. Watts
  The British ambassador in Athens saw the Greek Minister of the Interior on 11 December when he asked that British drivers be given all support and protection. The following day my noble Friend the Minister for Aviation and Shipping spoke in Brussels to the Greek Transport Minister about the position of trapped British drivers and compensation. I am pleased to say that almost all the British drivers known to have been detained in Greece are now clear of the blockades.

  Mr. Smith
  To as the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what discussions have taken place at the Council of Ministers regarding the issue of compensation claims from British lorry drivers who were delayed by the French lorry drivers' dispute; [9421]

  (2) what discussions have taken place at the Council of Ministers regarding the issue of British lorry drivers currently delayed in Greece. [9422]

  Mr. Watts
  The blockades of lorries in both France and Greece were discussed at the Transport Council last week. The French and Greek Transport Ministers both responded positively. The French Minister repeated the assurances she had previously given to my right hon. Friend that claims for compensation will be considered as quickly as possible.

  BEST Pension Fund
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will place in the Library a copy of the correspondence which has passed between the trustees of the BEST pension fund and his Department. [9390]

  Mr. Watts
  A copy of the letter which my right hon. Friend wrote to NBC Pension Trustees Ltd. on 27 November has already been placed in the Library. Because of the possibility of legal proceedings, I do not believe that it would be appropriate to place other correspondence in the Library.

  Public Transport (Assaults)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many attacks on(a) passengers and (b) staff have been (i) reported (ii) resulted in prosecutions and (iii) resulted in convictions in each of the last five years broken down by (1) gender and (2) age bands of 10 years on (x) London Underground, (y) each of the bus companies operating in London and (z) each of the railway companies; and if he will make a statement. [9608]

  Mr. Bowis
  The information is not available in the form requested.

  West London Line
  Mr. Soley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received from the British Railways Board on the funding of the noise mitigation scheme on the West London line; and if he will make a statement. [8742]

  Mr. Watts
  [holding answer 16 December 1996]Following discussions with the British Railways Board, the Government have taken steps to ensure that the board is able to meet its commitment to part-fund noise mitigation works on the West London line. It is now up to the board to take this forward with the local authorities concerned.

  Policies and Programme
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport on what date the 1997–98 settlement for the transport policies and programme will be announced; and in what format the details will be published. [9159]

  Mr. Watts
  [holding answer 16 December 1996]Details of the settlement were released on 16 December. Copies of the press release containing a full analysis of data were placed in the Library of the House. They were also placed in Members' mail boxes in the Members' post office counter.

  Bus Employees Superannuation Trust
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will place in the Library the correspondence between himself and his predecessor and the trustee of the bus employees superannuation trust over the last three years; and if he will make a statement. [9177]

  Mr. Watts
  [holding answer 16 December 1996]A copy of the letter that my right hon. Friend wrote to the NBC Pension Trustees Ltd. on 27 November has already been placed in the Library. He and his predecessor have written no other letters to the company.

DEFENCE

  Aviation Repairs
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what plans he has for privatisation in the field of defence aviation repair; and if he will make a statement; [8828]

  (2) what consultations his Department plan in respect of the possible formation of a Defence Aviation Repair Agency; and if he will make a statement; [8825]
  521
  (3) what plans he has to establish a Defence Aviation Repair Agency; and if he will make a statement. [8827]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The armed forces requirements for deep aviation repair are currently the subject of a prior options review to determine the optimum means of providing this service. The team conducting this review has consulted widely with establishments concerned, including trades union representatives. They have also consulted industrial companies who undertake deep aviation repair. This review is expected to be completed in the new year.

  Gulf War Syndrome
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if Doctor Wisley's epidemiological study in relation to illnesses arising from the Gulf war and other operations is complementary to those announced by the Minister of State in his statement of 10 December,Official Report, columns 119–23; and if he will make a statement. [9172]

  Mr. Soames
  [holding answer 16 December 1996]In commissioning the two studies that I recently announced my Department sought to complement rather than duplicate federally-funded US research. To this end, the Medical Research Council was briefed about Dr. Wessely's study before the council made its recommendations to the MOD. The three projects will be carefully co-ordinated to ensure that they complement each other.

  Children (Payment of Air Fares)
  Sir Alan Haselhurst
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many children under the age of 16 years had air fares subsidised(a) wholly and (b) partly by reason of their relationship to service personnel and employees of his Department for travel between the United Kingdom and (i) other EU states and (ii) non-EU states, in the last year for which information is available; and what was the total cost of the subsidy. [9320]

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

  Legislation
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many items of legislation relating to his Department have been repealed since January 1994; how many statutory instruments were introduced during the same period; and how many of the latter were(a) deregulatory and (b) fee orders. [9359]

  Mr. Soames
  I refer the hon. Lady to the answer given today by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.

  Bowman Radio Communications Contract
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement concerning his Department's competition policy in relation to the Bowman radio communications contract. [9659]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The Bowman programme has been pursued in accordance with Ministry of Defence procurement policy, whereby the Department seeks competition wherever possible. The programme is in the 522
  project definition phase, which is being undertaken by two competing consortia, Yeoman led by Siemens Plessey Systems and Racal, and Crossbow, led by ITT UK Ltd. The MOD is currently examining the procurement options open to the Department for production, including the scope for competition at sub-contractor level. Whichever procurement route is chosen for Bowman, MOD will aim to secure the maximum practicable level of competition.

  Dr. Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he plans to announce the award of the Bowman radio communications contract. [9657]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The procurement options for the Bowman production phase are currently being evaluated by the Ministry of Defence. A decision on the way ahead will be announced as soon as possible.

  Dr. Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what criteria he will base his decision to award the Bowman radio communications contract. [9658]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The criteria for placing a contract for the Bowman production phase will be consistent with departmental procurement policy, which aims to obtain the best overall value for money for the Defence budget. Securing the maximum practicable level of competition will be central to the achievement of this objective.

  Royal Scots Dragoon Guards (Bosnia)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his statement to the Scottish Grand Committee on 25 November,Official Report, column 6, if he will make a statement on the number of men and quantity of equipment available to the Royal Scots Dragoon Guards in Bosnia. [9392]

  Mr. Soames
  There are 343 Royals Scots Dragoon Guards currently serving in Bosnia and Croatia. They are equipped with 15 Challenger tanks and a total of 44 tracked armoured vehicles. The remainder of the regiment is conducting training and rear party duties. Two squadrons of tanks which are not required for the current deployment have been retained in Germany.

  Officers (Retirement)
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many officers in each service and by rank have been retired on full pay in each year since 1992; and what was the annual cost in each category. [9445]

  Mr. Soames
  None. The armed forces pension scheme makes no provision for the retirement of officers, or other ranks, on full pay.

  Clansman Radio Communications System
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the current operational effectiveness of the Army's Clansman radio communications system. [9660]

  Mr. Soames
  The operational effectiveness of all in-service equipment is kept under constant review. Clansman continues to provide a useful capability and will be maintained in-service until it is replaced by Bowman.

  "Competing for Quality"
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he proposes to announce the result of the "Competing for Quality" competition at RAF Sealand, Deeside, Flintshire; and if he will make a statement.[8826]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, the then Minister of State for Defence Procurement, announced on 18 October 1994,Official Report, column 237, his intention to undertake a "Competing for Quality" programme for all activities at RAF Sealand. After a hard-fought competition, I can now announce that the in-house bid team has been selected, against two commercial bidders, and that my Department intends to enter into a service level agreement with the team, beginning in April next year. The competition has resulted in significant savings and will safeguard the important role of RAF Sealand in providing crucial support to the front line. I congratulate the in-house team on the imagination and hard work shown in putting together the winning bid.

  Ministry of Defence Police
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the standard disciplinary procedures for his Department's police force; who is the nominated disciplinary officer; and who deputises in the absence of the nominated disciplinary officer. [8935]

  Mr. Soames
  This is a matter for the chief constable/chief executive of the Ministry of Defence Police. I have asked the chief constable/chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from W.E.E. Boreham to Mr. John McFall, dated 17 December 1996:
  I am replying to your Question to the Secretary of State for Defence about disciplinary procedures within the Ministry of Defence Police, as this falls within my area of responsibility as Chief Constable/Chief Executive of the Ministry of Defence Police Agency.
  The Ministry of Defence Police (Discipline) Regulations 1985, (as amended 1988) are based on the Home Office Police Discipline Regulations.
  The Deputy Chief Constable is responsible for deciding the level of disciplinary action to be taken in complaints against police and reported disciplinary matters.
  If it is decided by the Deputy Chief Constable that formal disciplinary proceedings by way of a hearing are required, the officer(s) will appear before either the Chief Constable or a nominated Assistant Chief Constable depending on the seriousness of the matters complained of, and the levels of punishment thought appropriate.
  However, all complaints against police matters in England and Wales are referred to the independent Police Complaints Authority in the same way as for all other Home Department Police Forces. Complaints matters in Scotland are dealt with in exactly the same way as those considered by Scottish Chief Constables with their Forces. There is no provision in Scotland for an independent body for complaints against the police other than Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary (Scotland) to whom a complainant may refer if dissatisfied with the Chief Constable's decision. In Northern Ireland complaints are referred to the Independent Commission for Police Complaints for Northern Ireland.

  Young Service Personnel
  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many British soldiers under the age of 18 years are serving in(a) Northern Ireland and (b) Bosnia. [9299]

  Mr. Soames
  The number of British soldiers under 18 years of age who are currently serving in(a) Northern Ireland and (b) Bosnia is 44 and 32 respectively.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  "New Labour's Public Expenditure Plans"
  Mr. Derek Foster
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what costs quoted in the document, "New Labour's Public Expenditure Plans", were prepared in his Department; what detailed assumptions and interpretations were provided to officials in his Department to enable preparation of each cost; and what was the total cost to public funds of preparing each estimate. [6352]

  Mr. Lang
  The Department of Trade and Industry, in conjunction with the Treasury, prepared factual material relating to costings published in "New Labour's Public Expenditure Plans" numbered 7,8,9,10 and 88. The detailed assumptions and interpretations that were provided to officials are set out in my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary's reply to the hon. Member today. It is not the normal working practice to keep a record of the time spent in providing factual information to Ministers and it is not therefore possible to offer a reliable estimate of the costs involved.

  Business Links
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what monitoring process will be used by his Department to ensure that merging the business links budget into a single budget will be cost effective; and what checks will be in place to ensure that money is being targeted effectively by business links. [8937]

  Mr. Page
  Merging the business links budget into a single budget stream is part of a simplification process which also involves relating funding to achievements. Bids for business links service funding are submitted by training and enterprise councils which are required to assess the business support services required in the local area in a business plan which will also describe how the TEC will monitor achievements and impacts. The TEC will be required to submit regular management information to the Government Office, have regular reviews of the targets and milestones in the business plan with the Government Office contract manager, satisfy financial appraisal and monitoring checks and provide evidence of achievements against plans before each contracting round. In addition, my Department has a programme of independent evaluation to check that Government funding is being targeted in a way that secures optimum value for money.

  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many business links have not proved financially viable; and what has been the total amount of funding provided by the Government. [8938]
  525
  Mr. Page
  The Department of Trade and Industry's contribution towards establishing the business links network is approximately £54 million over the period 1993–94 to 1995–96. Over the same period the Department has provided £113 million for business support services. For the current financial year the Department has made available £49 million for establishing the network and £81 million for business support services. No business link has proved not be financially viable.

  Offshore Petroleum Licensing
  Lady Olga Maitland
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the current position of the 17th round of offshore petroleum licensing. [9728]

  Mr. Page
  I am pleased to announce that the Petroleum (Production) (Seaward Areas) (Amendment) Regulations 1996 came into force on 16 December 1996. These regulations vary the terms and conditions of petroleum licences to reflect the nature of the acreage to be awarded in the 17th round.

  Following the entry into force of the regulations, the formal notice offering tranches within the UKCS for licence in the 17th round of offshore licensing will soon be published in the Official Journal of the European Communities. This will set out the detailed terms of the round, including the format of applications, the information required with the application, the criteria to be used in assessing applications and the date by when applications must be received which will be no earlier than 90 days after the notice appears.

  In order to provide as much flexibility to applicants as possible, applications may be made from 6 January 1997 until the closing date. No decisions about licence awards will be taken until after the closing date for applications and after all applications have been thoroughly assessed.

  Chemical Weapons Act 1996
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement about the operation of the Chemical Weapons Act 1996. [9863]

  Mr. Lang
  The Chemical Weapons Act 1996 entered into force on 16 September 1996.

  In consultation with industry and other interested parties, my Department has continued with preparations to implement the chemical weapons convention in the United Kingdom from when it comes into effect on 29 April 1997. The Chemical Weapons (Notification) Regulations 1996 and the Chemical Weapons (Licence Appeal Provisions) Order 1996 have been made; the production, possession and use of the most toxic chemicals is now subject to licence, with a more refined licensing system to be introduced from 1 January 1997; the first stage of the process of collecting information to enable the compilation of the United Kingdom's initial declaration to the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons has started; and consultation on the composition of the advisory committee is also well advanced. I hope to be able to make an announcement about the appointment of the committee's chairman soon.

  EU Research Council
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on the outcome of the EU Research Council on 5 December. [9862]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  The main issue considered by the Council was the Commission's revised proposal for 100 million ecu additional funding for the fourth framework programme for research and technological development. The Council agreed the proposal subject to a statement in the minutes by the Council and Commission recognising the need for the Council to examine urgently, on the basis of detailed figures provided by the Commission, the expenditure pressures expected to arise in category 3 of the EU's financial perspectives until the end of the current financing period. This statement was included to respond to concerns expressed by the UK, and shared by other member states, that the proposal should be fully compatible with the financial perspectives. The Netherlands and Sweden entered reservations that are expected to be raised as and when the European Parliament confirm funding agreed by the Budget Council for research and TENs—trans-European networks—in the final stages of the EU's 1997 budgetary process. The areas to be funded from the 100 million ecu match the United Kingdom priorities well, especially research on transmissible spongiform encephalopathies and vaccines, and on aeronautics technologies.

  The Council had a brief discussion of the Commission's proposals for the structure of the fifth framework programme outlined in its working paper, "Towards the Fifth Framework Programme: material for the policy debate". Most member states shared the reservations expressed by the UK, that substantial further consideration was needed of programme objectives and management mechanisms to achieve the aim of a focused, user-driven programme.

  The Council agreed conclusions endorsing the Commission's proposed research strategy for transmissible spongiform encephalopathies, which specifies priority research areas and embodies provisions that will ensure that the research undertaken is of the highest quality. The Council also agreed conclusions on the treatment of SMEs in the framework programme, the role of the joint research centre and the contribution of research to the fight against drugs.

  Science, Engineering and Technology Expenditure
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he has reviewed the interrelationships between the science, engineering and technology expenditure of Government Departments. [9864]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  The Government chief scientific adviser has carried out such a review at my right. hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade's request. A report of the review is published today and I have arranged for copies to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Newspaper Publishers
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has received regarding the conclusion of the recent report of the Committee for Diversity and Pluralism on the space available for minority titles; and if he will make a statement. [7965]

  Mr. Page
  I have seen a copy of the report and noted the comments about the distribution of newspapers and magazines.

  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what conclusions his Department has reached in respect of the recent recommendations about home news delivery made by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission; and what assessment he has made of representations from local professional newsagents regarding margin decreases imposed by newspaper publishers. [7964]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The MMC last reported on newspaper distribution in 1993. It made no recommendations in respect of home delivery.

  Newsagents' margins on the sale of newspapers are a commercial matter for the parties concerned.

  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment he has made of the conclusions of the recent report of the Committee for Diversity and Pluralism relating to newspaper publishers' imposed margins; and if he will make a statement. [8582]

  Mr. Page
  I have seen a copy of this report and noted its contents.

  Offshore Installations (Pollution)
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what records his Department compiles of the oil company names and the oil drilling rigs and platforms involved in oil spillages and discharges in United Kingdom licensed blocks in the(a) North sea and (b) North Atlantic. [9500]

  Mr. Page
  Oil spills and oily discharges from oil and gas installations on the United Kingdom continental shelf are reported on an installation by installation basis to my Department. This information is then compiled on an annual basis to provide the records contained in the "Energy Report", a copy of which is available in the Library of the House.

  The reports prior to 1994 are held in a non-electronic form on file in chronological order, whilst those from 1994 are held electronically and can thus be more readily sorted to give information on a company or installation basis.

  European Business Survey
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when his Department received a copy of Grant Thornton's spring 1996 European Business Survey; and what assessment he has made of the survey. [9281]

  Mr. Page
  My Department received a copy of Grant Thornton's 1996 "European Business Survey" when it was published in May of this year.
  528
  I welcome the survey and have noted its findings. The Government place great emphasis on listening to and responding to the views of business. Grant Thornton's "European Business Survey" is an important contribution to that process. It provides a comprehensive, comparative analysis of the opinions of small and medium-sized enterprises in 17 European countries, including the United Kingdom, on a wide range of issues relevant to their competitiveness.

  Airline Alliance
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if the undertakings and conditions he has proposed in relation to the British Airways/American Airlines alliance are subject to amendment; and if he will consult on them with(a) the public and (b) interested parties. [9420]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade announced on 6 December that the parties to this alliance would have to agree to certain undertakings and conditions if they were to avoid a reference to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission. In asking the Director General of Fair Trading to negotiate these undertakings he explicitly invited all interested third parties to make known their views on the proposals. Representations should be made to the Office of Fair Trading by 5 pm on 10 January 1997.

  CE Energy
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he proposes to refer the bid for Northern Electric by CE Energy to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission; and if he will make a statement. [9310]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  [holding answer 16 December 1996]My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade announced on 13 December that he had decided not to refer CE Electric UK plc's proposed acquisition of Northern Electric plc to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  "New Labour's Public Expenditure Plans"
  Mr. Derek Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what costs quoted in the document, "New Labour's Public Expenditure Plans", were prepared in his Department; what detailed assumptions and interpretations were provided to officials in his Department to enable preparation of each cost; and what was the total cost to public funds of preparing each estimate. [6348]

  Mr. Lilley
  The Department of Social Security, in conjunction with the Treasury, prepared factual material relating to costings published in "New Labour's Public Expenditure Plans" numbered 64 to 80. The detailed assumptions and interpretations that were provided to officials are set out in my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary's reply to the hon. Member today. It is not the normal working practice to keep a record of the time spent in providing factual information to Ministers and it is not therefore possible to offer a reliable estimate of the costs involved.

  Invalidity Benefit
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how much per year a claimant on invalidity benefit is allowed to earn under the therapeutic rule without it having any effect on his benefit; and if he will make a statement. [6901]

  Mr. Burt
  Incapacity benefit recipients are permitted to work for up to 16 hours per week provided that such work has been certified by their general practitioner as being beneficial to their specific medical condition. Such work will not normally affect benefit entitlement unless earnings exceed £45.50 per week.

  Retirement Pension
  Ms Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his estimate of(a) the number of pensioners (i) aged 75 years and over and (ii) aged under 75 years and (b) the cost of the flat-rate basic retirement pension, at 1995–96 prices, for the years (1) 199.5–96, (2) 2000–2001, (3) 2010–2011, (4) 2020–2021 and (5) 2030–2031. [8016]

  Mr. Heald
  There are 4.3 million pensioners aged 75 years and over, and 6.2 million pensioners aged under 75 at 31 March 1996.1

  Estimates for the expenditure on basic state retirement pension at 1995–96 prices for the specified years are given in the table.2

  1995–96 prices £ billion

  Year

  Expenditure on basic state retirement pension for pensioners aged under 75

  Expenditure on basic state retirement pension for pensioners aged 75 and over

  Total expenditure on basic state retirement pension

  1995–96

  15.9

  11.0

  26.9

  2000–01

  16.8

  12.8

  29.5

  2010–11

  19.8

  13.5

  33.3

  2020–21

  19.4

  15.8

  35.3

  2030–31

  22.7

  19.8

  42.5

  Notes:

  1 Figures are for all countries and are rounded to the nearest 100,000. State retirement pension includes all contributory and non contributory state pensions.

  2 Figures are rounded to the nearest £100 million.

  Source:

  Government Actuaries Department.

  Contributory basic retirement pension: the Government Actuary's Department. The figure for 1995–96 is based on the draft accounts for the national insurance fund for 1995–96. The figures for 2000–2001 onwards are based on the report by GAD on the "Financial Effects of the Pension Bill 1994 on the National Insurance Fund", Cm 2714, and assume price uprating of benefits and the equalisation of state pension ages at 65 by 2020. The expenditure on basic state retirement pension for pensioners above and below the age of 75 has been calculated using GAD population projects.

  Non-contributory retirement pension: departmental estimates based on the departmental report.

  Disability Working Allowance
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the future of the disability working allowance. [8210]

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  The Government are committed to helping sick and disabled people who wish to return to work and disability working allowance is an important element of our approach. This benefit is 530
  providing valuable help to an increasing number of people: currently there are nearly 11,000 recipients, more than double the number 18 months ago. Similarly, expenditure for 1995–96 has risen to an estimated £15 million, just under three quarters of the total spend for the first three years.

  Research conducted by the Policy Studies Institute into the performance of disability working allowance has recently been published and this, along with our own more recent management information, will be used to continue to look at ways of refining and improving the benefit.

  Benefit Fraud Hotline
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proportion of reports to the benefits cheat information line have proved unfounded to date; and what redress is available to those wrongly accused. [8073]

  Mr. Heald
  It is too early to give any indication of the number of unfounded or successful referrals generated by calls from the public to the hotline. Fraud investigations often take some time to process, to ensure that fraud is proven before someone has their benefit stopped.

  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Lord Chancellor's Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Mr. Streeter), to the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond) on 17 October 1996, Official Report, columns 1086–87.

  Mr. Kevin Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what is the annual cost of running the national benefit fraud hotline; [8924]

  (2) what has been the total cost of the national benefit fraud hotline since it was set up. [8923]

  Mr. Heald
  The annual cost of running the national benefit fraud hotline will be approximately £1.5 million per annum. Information regarding running costs to date is not available.

  Mr. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social
  Security how much has been spent on advertising the national benefit fraud hotline in 1996–97. [8926]

  Mr. Heald
  The answer is £500,000.

  Mr. Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the average number of calls made to the national benefit fraud hotline each month. [8921]

  Mr. Heald
  The average number of calls to the national benefit fraud hotline per month is 27,791.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what has been the cost of setting up and running the benefit fraud hotline; and if he will make a statement. [9444]

  Mr. Heald
  The cost of operating the national benefit fraud hotline is £1.5 million per annum.

  War Pensions
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) in what circumstances individuals may claim a war pension; and if he will make a statement; [8205]
  531
  (2) how many people are currently (a) claiming and (b) entitled to claim a war pension; and if he will make a statement. [8204]

  Mr. Heald
  In October 1996, the latest month for which figures are available, the War Pensions Agency received a total of 3,300 new claims for war disablement and war widows pensions. At 31 October 1996, 326,716 War Pensions were in payment. A war disablement pension may be claimed by any former member of the armed forces who considers that disablement may be due to an injury attributable to, or aggravated by, service. A war widow's pension may be awarded where the late husband's death was due to, or hastened by, service. Similar schemes exist in respect of disablement or death sustained outside the armed forces as a result of enemy action during the second world war, for example, by members of the merchant navy.

  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many new claims for war pensions were made in each of the last five years by people aged over 65 years. [8662]

  Mr. Heald
  The information is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will place in the Library a copy of the medical evidence in relation to hearing loss of war pensioners which was presented to the Central Advisory Committee on War Pensions. [8719]

  Mr. Heald
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill) on 12 December,Official Report, column 360.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many(a) men and (b) women are currently in receipt of a war pension in the age categories (i) 20 to 30 years, (ii) 30 to 40 years, (iii) 40 to 50 years, (iv) 50 to 60 years, (v) 60 to 70 years, (vi) 70 to 80 years and (vii) over 80 years; and if he will make statement. [9446]

  Mr. Heald
  The information is not available in the format requested and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  However, information regarding the number of people in receipt of a war disablement or war widow's pension at 30 November 1996, the most recent date for which information is available, by age is in the table.

  Age band

  Disabled

  Widows

  Under 21

  76

  2

  21–30

  3,986

  81

  31–40

  8,801

  467

  41–50

  13,676

  858

  51–59

  23,457

  1,649

  60–64

  22,827

  1,802

  65–69

  26,074

  3,821

  70–80

  136,799

  29,891

  81–90

  30,482

  18,886

  91–100

  984

  2,162

  Over 100

  38

  50

  Deafness
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on proposed reductions for higher deafness pensions; and how many war pensioners will be affected. [8665]

  Mr. Heald
  No reductions in war disablement pensions awarded in respect of a hearing disability have been proposed. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has been advised that there has been a change in medical opinion on the effect of noise-induced sensorineural hearing loss on a subsequent hearing loss due to other causes such as aging.

  Where medical matters need to be determined on a claim for, or application for review of, an award of a war disablement pension, the law requires that part of the claim to be determined by a medical officer appointed by the Secretary of State. The medical officer certifies whether or not the disablement is due to or aggravated by service in the armed forces, and also the degree of disablement due to service. The Secretary of State is required to make payments of war disablement pension in accordance with the certified level of disablement.

  It was previously thought that a service-related noise induced hearing loss could intensify the effect of a subsequent hearing loss due to other causes such as aging. Authoritative medical opinion is now that such interaction does not occur and that the maximum effect of service-related hearing loss is at release from service. Medical officers must apply current medical opinion. For them to do otherwise would be unlawful.

  It is estimated that, in 1997–98, some 10,000 claims by existing war pensioners for deterioration of their hearing loss, and about 1,000 new claimants may be affected by the change in medical opinion.

  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many claims have been made for industrial deafness from people employed or formerly employed in the mining industry; how many have been resolved; and how many are waiting for assessment. [8528]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The information is not available in the format requested and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  However, we estimate that as at 1 April 1995 there were more than 2,000 industrial injuries disablement pensions in payment for occupational deafness to people employed or formerly employed in the deep coal mining, opencast working and the manufacture of solid fuel industries.

  Notes:

  Information is based on a 10 per cent. sample with an allowance for late returns.

  Severe Disablement Allowance
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will reconsider his decision to remove the qualification which currently entitles those on severe disablement allowance to retain their benefit without further medical assessment; and if he will make a statement in respect of future qualifications. [8446]
  533
  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  We propose to change the severe disablement allowance regulations to simplify the medical test arrangements by passporting those who satisfy the SDA 80 per cent. disablement test through the all-work test; and target resources on the severely disabled by limiting the criteria which passport people through the SDA 80 per cent. disablement test to those which are adequate measures of 80 per cent. disability.

  These proposals were the subject of a recent Social Security Advisory Committee consultation exercise. I will provide a statement to Parliament in response to the forthcoming SSAC report in due course.

  Reduced Earnings Allowance
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what are the estimated savings in his Department in(a) 1997–98 and (b) future years as a result of the changes to reduced earnings allowance. [8705]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  Savings in 1997–98 and 1998–99 have been estimated at £35 million per year.

  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will give a breakdown by location of those affected by amendments to regulations relating to the reduced earnings allowance. [8725]

  Mr. Evans
  The available information is set out in the table:

  Reduced earnings allowance cases by area directorate

  Area directorate

  Number of cases

  AD1—East London And Anglia

  882

  AD2—Chilterns

  409

  AD3—London South

  1,984

  AD4—West Country

  890

  AD5—Mercia

  2,735

  AD6—West Midlands

  797

  AD7—Wales

  2,127

  AD8—North West Coast

  1,790

  AD9—Greater Manchester

  1,692

  AD10—Yorkshire

  2,046

  AD11—Tyne Tees

  4,470

  AD12—West of Scotland

  521

  AD13—East of Scotland

  1,209

  Benefit Centres

  76

  Total

  21,628

  Source:

  Benefits Agency
  100 per cent. count as at 31 October 1996 and subject to amendment.

  Note:

  Information relates to the amendment regulation that were introduced on 24 March 1996.

  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what recent representations he has received about changes in the reduced earnings allowance. [8721]

  Mr. Evans
  As at 9 December, we had over the preceding six weeks received 12 representations from hon. Members and 14 from members of the public.

  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many appeals there have been to social security appeals tribunals against reductions in the reduced earnings allowance; what were the results of these appeals;534
  how many appeals are to be considered by the Social Security Commissioners; by what date the appeals will be heard; and if he will make a statement. [8726]

  Mr. Evans
  The information regarding appeals to social security tribunals is not available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Since the amending regulations came into force from 24 March, there have been 24 appeals to Social Security Commissioners, 20 are from claimants and four from adjudication officers. It is not possible to say at this stage when the appeals will be heard.

  Family Credit
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of the annual cost of increasing the maintenance disregard for lone parents receiving family credit to(a) £20 per week, (b) £25 per week and (c) £30 per week and of the numbers who would gain in each case. [8870]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The information is set out in the table.

  Estimated cost of increasing the maintenance disregard in family credit for lone parents

  1997–98

  Weekly maintenance disregard (£)

  Additional net benefit costs (£ Million)

  Number of gainers

  20

  5

  50,000

  25

  10

  50,000

  30

  15

  50,000

  Estimates are rounded to the nearest £5 million.

  Income Support (Lone Parents)
  Mr. Alan Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of the annual cost of introducing a maintenance disregard for lone parents on income support and of the numbers who would gain, at a weekly disregard level of(a) £5, (b) £10, (c) £15 and (d) £20. [8869]

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  It is estimated that the cost of introducing a £5 maintenance disregard for lone parents in 1997–98 would be around £60 million; the cost of a £10 disregard would be around £100 million; the cost of a £15 disregard would be around £135 million; and the cost of a £20 disregard would be around £165 million. Some 240,000 lone parents would gain.

  The annual cost of a disregard and number of lone parents who gained would increase over time as the Child Support Agency's caseload increased. There would also be increases in costs and numbers if the disregard were extended to parents with care who had repartnered. The estimates apply the disregard to child support maintenance and other forms of child maintenance.

  Legislation
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many items of legislation relating to his
  535
  Department have been repealed since January 1994; how many statutory instruments were introduced during the same period; and how many of the latter were (a) deregulatory and (b) fee orders. [9369]

  Mr. Burt
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster today.

  Water Bills
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the current amount for water bills allowed for in assessments of benefit entitlement; and by how much it has increased since 1994. [9181]

  Mr. Burt
  Social security benefits do not identify separate amounts for specific expenditure items. Benefit 536
  levels are considered for uprating each year and we seek to take account of all relevant factors including water costs as part of that exercise.

  Cold Weather Payments
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security which weather stations are used for the purpose of cold weather payments in those areas covered by postcodes NE1 to NE49. [9606]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The weather stations used for the postcodes NE1 to 49 inclusive are as follows:

  Boltshope Park: NEI9, 44, 47–48

  Boulmer: NE22, 24

  Carlisle: NE49

  Newcastle: NE1–13, 15–18, 20–21, 23, 25–43, 45–46

  Note:

  Postcode NE14 does not exist.

PRIME MINISTER

  Libya (Sanctions)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) what action he is taking to enter into dialogue with Arab and African countries about sanctions against Libya; [8012]

  (2) what recent representations he has received from (a) France, (b) Arab states and (c) the USA on the reconsideration of UN sanctions against Libya. [9393]

  The Prime Minister
  When the need arises, we remind other Governments, including Arab and African Governments, that sanctions against Libya must remain in place until Libya complies fully with the requirements of the United Nations Security Council's resolutions. These requirements include the surrender of those accused of the Lockerbie bombing for trial in Scotland or the United States.

  The Arab League and some Arab Governments have pressed for sanctions to be lifted and a compromise reached on Lockerbie.

  The US and French Governments agree with us that sanctions against Libya must remain in place until Libya complies fully with the requirements of the UN Security Council's resolutions.

  Engagements
  Sir Peter Tapsell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 17 December. [8127]

  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.

  Council of Europe and WEU
  Sir Michael Shersby
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will announce the composition of the United Kingdom delegation for the 1997 ordinary Session of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. [9742]

  The Prime Minister
  The 1997 ordinary Session of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe will be opened in Strasbourg on 27 January 1997. The delegation from the United Kingdom for the Session will consist of 19 members of the Conservative party, 15 members of the Labour party and two members from the minority parties.

  The appointments of representatives and substitutes have been made on the basis of nominations by the parties concerned in accordance with the resolution of the House on 22 May 1992, Official Report, column 682 and the House of Lords on 18 June 1992, Official Report, House of Lords, columns 290–92.

  The same delegation will be representing the United Kingdom Parliament at the Assembly of the Western European Union.
  538
  Representatives from the Government benches will be:

  My hon. Friend, the Member for Reading, West, (Sir A. Durant) who will continue to act as leader of both delegations.

  My right hon. and hon. Friends the Members for Northavon (Sir J. Cope) for Warwick and Leamington (Sir D. Smith), for Calder Valley (Sir D. Thompson), for Ashford (Sir K. Speed), for Medway (Dame P. Fenner), for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) for Ravensbourne (Sir J. Hunt), for Bridlington (Mr. Townend), and Lord Newall.

  Representatives from the Labour party will be:

  The hon. Members for: Wentworth (Mr. Hardy), for Tooting (Mr. Cox), for Wansbeck (Mr. Thompson), for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond), for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Davis), and Lord Kirkhill.

  The representative from the minority parties will be the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston).

  The following substitutes have been appointed to act as necessary on behalf of the delegates from the Government benches:

  The hon. Members for Sheffield, Hallam (Sir I. Patnick), for Norfolk, North (Sir R. Howell), for Brighton, Kemptown (Sir W. Bowden), for Salisbury (Mr. Key), for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. Dicks), for Chipping Barnet (Sir S. Chapman), for Newark (Mr. Alaxander), Baroness Hooper and Earl of Dundee.

  From the Labour Party the hon. Members for Sunderland, North (Mr. Etherington), for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Wray), for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes), for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe), for Leigh (Mr. Cunliffe), for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall), for Manchester, Central (Mr. Litherland) and Baroness Gould of Potternewton.

  From the minority parties: Lord Mackie of Benshie.

  Sir Anthony Durant
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of the latest information bulletin of the United Kingdom delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and the Assembly of the Western European Union. [9785]

  The Prime Minister
  I have done so today.

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Prime Minister how many of the individuals appointed by his Department to public positions in the last year were first identified by the public appointments unit. [8548]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 10 December 1996]Eight of the individuals appointed by me in the last year were first identified by the public appointments unit.

  State Opening of Parliament
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Prime Minister what proposals he has to reduce the expenditure on the state opening of
  539
  Parliament; and what is his latest calculation of the total cost of the last state opening. [8001]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 6 December 1996]Expenditure on the state opening of Parliament properly reflects the nature of the occasion. The deployment of police officers to maintain public order on the route of the procession is an operational matter for the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis.

  On the cost of the last state opening, I refer the hon. Member to my answer of 11 November, Official Report, column 32, and to the answers given by my hon. Friend, the Minister of State for the Armed Forces, 19 November, Official Report, column 504 and by my right hon. Friend, the Minister of State, Home Office, 16 December, Official Report, column 450.

ENVIRONMENT

  Household Growth
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on household growth. [7863]

  Mr. Gummer
  The latest projections for England show a rise in the number of households—by up to 4.4 million over a 25-year period up to 2016. I am determined to ensure that the maximum number of these are accommodated on land that has already been used—particularly in our city centres.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the local authority financial settlement for 1997–98. [7865]

  29. Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the impact of the Budget settlement upon local authorities in England. [7879]

  Mr. Curry
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the statement that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made to the House on 27 November,Official Report, columns 337–42.

  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received in respect of the standard spending assessment for Essex county council and Basildon district council. [7873]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  We have one representation from Essex county council about pupil numbers. We have not received any representations from Basildon district council on the provisional local government finance settlement for 1997–98.

  28. Sir Colin Shepherd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the extent to which the present formula for deriving standard spending assessments reflects accurately the differing costs of providing services in sparsely populated rural areas and areas of urban density. [7878]
  540
  Sir Paul Beresford
  The research we commissioned into sparsity and local authority costs found that the size of the current allowance for sparsity in standard spending assessments is about right.

  Research into density concluded that other measures of urbanness might also be relevant, but that further study would be needed.

  For 1997–98, we therefore propose no changes in the basis of the sparsity and density allowances.

  Mr. Pearson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received following his statement on the local authority finance settlement for England in 1997–98. [7880]

  Mr. Curry
  Following my right hon. Friend's announcement on 27 November, authorities have until 3 January 1997 to make written representations on the 1997–98 settlement. We have received 45 written representations so far.

  Business Rate
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the impact on rural East Anglia of proposals to reduce business rates for village shops. [7867]

  Mr. Curry
  We consulted widely on our proposals for a village shop rate relief scheme; local authorities in East Anglia welcomed the proposals as a positive measure to help rural communities in the region.

  Council Housing (Central Heating)
  Mr. Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to provide resources to each local authority to install central heating in each council dwelling built before 1974. [7868]

  Mr. Clappison
  At the time of the 1991 English house condition survey, 73 per cent. of local authority properties built before 1974 had central heating. Local authorities receive allocations from the Government each year through the housing investment programme and other programmes. It is for them to decide how best to use these locally-determined priorities.

  Planning Policy
  Mr. Wilkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the preservation of public open space and green belt land in Greater London. [7869]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The Government remain committed to the preservation of green belt and open space land in London, as demonstrated in the recent publication of the housing Green Paper and revised strategic guidance for London planning authorities issued earlier this year.

  Planning System
  Sir Michael Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the
  541
  practice of developers of paying the relevant local planning authority to conduct public opinion surveys in order to gauge the likely reaction of residents in surrounding areas to their proposed development; and what assessment he has made as to whether such payments detract from the independence of the planning system. [7870]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  There is no reason why developers should not pay all or part of any cost involved in procuring public opinion surveys, if that is relevant to the consideration of a planning application. The value of such an arrangement would be dependent on the professionalism with which the survey was conducted and the integrity of the local authority involved.

  Greenhouse Gases
  Dr. Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what estimate he has made of the number of countries which will meet their current commitments on reducing greenhouse gas emissions. [7871]

  Mr. Gummer
  All developed countries are committed, under the framework convention on climate change, to aim to return their emissions of greenhouse gases to 1990 levels by 2000.

  It seems that three European Union countries, including the United Kingdom, are currently on course to meet this commitment.

  Unified Business Rate
  Mr. Day
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received about unified business rates for small businesses in areas affected by out-of-town shopping development. [7872]

  Mr. Curry
  I have received a number of such representations.

  Computers (Millennium Date Change)
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what assessment he has made of the millennium compliance of his Department's computer systems and of those in local government, together with those with which they are connected; and if he will make a statement. [7874]

  Mr. Gummer
  My Department is aware of the potential problems to departmental systems that may be caused by the millennium date change.

  The Department is a member of the public sector year 2000 group and is currently undertaking a study which will produce a year 2000 compliance audited inventory of systems, which will form the basis of a costed departmental year 2000 programme.

  It is for individual local authorities to assess for themselves the millennium compliance of their computer systems and take whatever action they consider necessary.

  Ferris Wheel, South Bank
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received asking him to call in the application for a ferris wheel on the south bank. [7875]
  542
  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  My right hon. Friend received 25 representations asking him to call in the proposed ferris wheel. When the application was referred to my right hon. Friend as a departure from Lambeth's development plan, the council provided copies of over 100 representations it had received. By a large majority, these were in support of the proposal. My right hon. Friend considered all these representations very carefully before deciding not to call in the planning application.

  City Challenge Partnerships
  Mr. Peter Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the progress being made by the city challenge partnerships. [7876]

  Mr. Curry
  Annual reports, reflecting the performance of all 31 city challenge partnerships during 1995–96, were received during the summer. The reports are very encouraging and show that city challenge is having a significant impact in regenerating some of the worst areas of urban deprivation.

  The annual reports record outputs achieved in 1995–96 through each of the 31 city challenge partnerships programmes. The aggregated achievements were:
  Over 26,000 dwellings were completed or improved (21 per cent. above target);
  Over 35,200 jobs were created or preserved (16 per cent. above target);
  Over 900 hectares of land were reclaimed or improved (4 per cent. above target);
  Over 700,000 sq m of new or improved business and commercial floorspace was provided (3 per cent. below target);
  Over 2,100 business start-ups (13 per cent. above target).
  Over £1 billion of city challenge funding is expected to attract over £4.7 billion of private sector leverage over the lifetime of the initiative.

  An independent study by a team from Liverpool John Moores university, the city challenge interim national evaluation, published by my Department in November, concluded that city challenge
  "is the most promising urban regeneration scheme so far attempted".

  Building Research Establishment
  Mrs. Wise
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the future of the Building Research Establishment. [7877]

  Mr. Clappison
  We have announced that we propose to privatise BRE by February 1997, and are on course to do so.

  Car Parking
  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to promote better management of car parking in town and city centres. [7864]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  I am keen to see better management of car parking in town centres. Our planning guidance on town centres emphasises the importance of a coherent town centre parking strategy in maintaining urban vitality. My Department also supports the Association for Town Centre Management in its role in encouraging good practice.

  Green-field Sites
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent representations he has received from house builders about the need to use green-field sites; and if he will make a statement. [7866]

  Mr. Gummer
  I have received one letter from the House Builders Federation. I also discussed this issue, among many others, at the federation's annual lunch last week.

  "New Labour's Public Expenditure Plans"
  Mr. Derek Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what costs quoted in the document, "New Labour's Public Expenditure Plans", were prepared in his Department; what detailed assumptions and interpretations were provided to officials in his Department to enable preparation of each cost; and what was the total cost to public funds of preparing each estimate. [6349]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The Department of the Environment, in conjunction with the Treasury, prepared factual material relating to costings published in "New Labour's Public Expenditure Plans" numbered 18 to 24. The detailed assumptions and interpretations that were provided to departmental officials are set out in my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary's reply to the right hon. Gentleman today. It is not the normal working practice to keep a record of the time spent in providing factual information to Ministers and it is not therefore possible to offer a reliable estimate of the costs involved.

  West Midlands Police
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what was the non-council tax funding made available to the West Midlands police in 1996–97; what it will be in 1997–98; and what is the percentage difference between these two figures; [9016]

  (2) what was the spending cap for the West Midlands police authority in 1996–97; what it will be in 1997–98; and what is the percentage difference between these two figures. [9017]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The information requested is as follows:

  1996–97 £ million

  Provisional 1997–98 £ million

  Percentage increase

  Non-council tax funding of budget requirement1

  309.017

  314.391

  1.7

  Other grants2—Police specific grant, Additional Rule 2

  0.991

  2.965

  Total non-council tax funding

  310.008

  317.356

  2.4

  Maximum budget requirement under proposed capping criteria

  343.218

  354.201

  3.2

  1 Comprises revenue support grant, redistributed non-domestic rates, and principal formula police specific grant, which together represent the amount of Exchequer funding in support of the authority's budget requirement.

  2 Excluding certain capital financing grants, totalling 1.359 million in 1996–97; the figure for these grants in 1997–98 is not yet available.

  Farmland Birds (Decline)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his letter to the hon. Member for Linlithgow of 27 November on the song thrush, if he will list the research projects into the causes and possible solutions to the decline in farmland birds to which he was referring. [8013]

  Mr. Clappison
  Research dealing with the possible relationship between farming practices over the last 20 years and population of farmland birds is listed in the table. All the research is funded by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.

  Contractor

  Project title

  Institute of Terrestrial Ecology/ADAS

  Field survey and experimentation; the effects of water regime on bird and invertebrate populations

  Game Conservancy Trust

  Arable reversions to permanent grassland; determining best management options to benefit declining bird populations

  British Trust for Ornithology/Institute of Terrestrial Ecology/Central Science Laboratory

  Effects of agricultural management on farmland birds

  Oxford University/British Trust for Ornithology

  The effects of agricultural change on bird populations

  Central Science Laboratory

  Assessment of the effects of seed treatments on birds feeding in orchards

  Central Science Laboratory

  Improving the assessment of pesticides risks to birds in orchards

  Central Science Laboratory

  Strategic monitoring and modelling of woodpigeon populations to predict damage and the implication of agricultural change

  Ecoscope Applied Ecologists

  Enhancement of farm woodlands for birds

  Permaculture
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer of 6 November,Official Report, column 525, on a definition of permaculture, what non-statutory definitions of permaculture are employed by his Department in its dealings with other bodies. [9213]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The new shorter Oxford English Dictionary defines "permaculture" as"An agricultural ecosystem intended to be complete and self-sustaining".

  Legislation
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many items of legislation relating to his Department have been repealed since January 1994; how many statutory instruments were introduced during the same period; and how many of the latter were(a) deregulatory and (b) fee orders. [9360]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  I refer to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster earlier today.

  Single Regeneration Budget
  Mr. Michael Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he intends to make announcements regarding the single regeneration budget bid from North Lincolnshire council. [9612]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The announcement was made yesterday. The bid submitted by North Lincolnshire council on behalf of the Barton Upon Humber regeneration partnership has been awarded £1.6 million SRB challenge fund support. A copy of the announcement is in the House of Commons Library.

  Technetium
  Dr. John Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he is taking with respect to reports of increased levels of technetium (TC-99) in seafood collected along the Cumbrian coast; and if he will make a statement. [9656]

  Mr. Clappison
  All discharges from Sellafield to the Irish sea, including technetium-99, are regulated by means of authorisations granted by the Environment Agency.

  British Nuclear Fuels has applied to the agency for a 25 per cent. reduction in the authorised discharge limits for technetium-99 from Sellafield, lowering it from 200 terabecquerels per year to 150 TBq per year. In addition, the company proposes to set as an internal working target an average discharge of 100 TBq per year.

  The proposed reduction in the limit is contained in an application to the Environment Agency for a variation to the certificate of authorisation under the Radioactive Substances Act 1993 to dispose of liquid waste from premises on the Sellafield site. Proposals by the Environment Agency to vary the authorisation will be the subject of public consultation.

  Waste Disposal
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what regulations govern the collection and environmentally safe disposal of(a) nicad rechargeable batteries, (b) fluorescent light bulbs and strip lights and (c) oil-based surplus paints and white spirit from (i) households and (ii) industrial and commercial premises. [9575]

  Mr. Clappison
  Waste from household, industrial and commercial premises must be managed and disposed of in accordance with sections 33 and 34 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. Although it will depend on the product and the use to which it has been put, most surplus oil-based paints and white spirits from industrial and commercial premises will be subject to additional controls set out in the Special Waste Regulations 1996. Waste nickel cadmium—Ni-Cd—rechargeable batteries from industrial and commercial premises are also subject to these regulations, under which all movements of "special waste" are tracked by a system of consignment notes to ensure that they reach an appropriate waste management facility. Waste fluorescent tubes from industrial and commercial premises are not special waste, but their movements are subject to the requirements of the duty of care under section 34 of the 1990 Act. The waste management licensing system is also designed to ensure that the recovery or disposal of controlled 546
  wastes—including fluorescent tubes—is carried out in a manner that does not harm human health or cause environmental damage. Under section 45 of the 1990 Act, responsibility for the collection of all these wastes from household premises lies with local authorities.

  Ni-Cd rechargeable batteries are also covered by the EC batteries directive—(91/157)—which requires them to be marked with a separate collection symbol for the purposes of recycling or controlled disposal. The battery and electrical appliance industries have set up a working group which has formulated a strategy aimed at increasing the number Ni-Cd batteries being collected and recycled.

  Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress has been made by Government Departments towards the target of improving energy efficiency by 15 per cent. in the five years ended March 1996. [9856]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  The Government's energy efficiency record has improved by just over 14.5 per cent.; very close to the 15 per cent. target we set five years ago. This is an important achievement and reflects much effort and commitment by the staff concerned. I am particularly pleased to draw attention to the very good results achieved on the Ministry of Defence estate. Full details are shown in the following tables.

  Energy management in individual Government Departments is a matter for those Departments. Comparisons between Departments need to be treated with care since their estates and activities vary considerably. There have been greater pressures on electricity use, resulting in particular from the growth in use of IT equipment: some very large increases in electricity usage are due to moving a dominant HQ building from naturally ventilated premises to air-conditioned ones. This is in line with trends in the economy as a whole as part of the process of improving productivity.

  I am delighted my own Department has been able to exceed the 15 per cent. target, with even more impressive progress having been made towards reducing emissions of carbon dioxide, down by 26 per cent. since 1990–91.

  Energy efficiency has been an important consideration in the design of the Department's new headquarters buildings, both of which are expected to be classified as "very good" under the Building Research Establishment environment assessment method—BREEAM.

  While these figures are encouraging, we must build on this success. Green Ministers have now agreed a further energy saving target of 20 per cent. by 2000, on the 1990–91 base year, and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has given this his personal support. Further savings will be challenging, but I remain determined that the Government should set an example and contribute to the reductions we need in meeting our climate change commitments.
  547

  Table 1: Government estate—energy efficiency performance1

  Civil Departments, including Agencies

  Energy expenditure2 £

  Own investment in energy efficiency2 £

  Percentage reduction relative to 1990–913 (positive figures represent per cent. improvement) Total cost at standard prices adjusted for estate and weather changes

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  MAFF4

  2,401,478

  2,316,723

  300,000

  500,000

  -1

  3

  -4

  -2

  1

  MAFF—Laboratories

  1,443,570

  1,346,279

  350,000

  330,000

  -12

  -19

  -24

  -29

  -24

  Cabinet Office

  501,068

  499,165

  5,000

  325,000

  -14

  0

  5

  9

  15

  Customs and Excise

  2,939,700

  3,046,638

  400,000

  300,000

  2

  14

  10

  14

  20

  Education and5

  507,707

  536,235

  12,000

  45,700

  -20

  -82

  -95

  -96

  -85

  Employment5

  10,169,274

  8,840,211

  1,227,318

  1,132,524

  -1

  -4

  -2

  8

  4

  Environment

  1,536,159

  1,375,987

  150,335

  87,116

  8

  13

  9

  14

  16

  Environment—QEIICC6

  457,126

  464,473

  0

  0

  -17

  -16

  -14

  -8

  -6

  FCO

  959,281

  834,208

  117,402

  30,000

  -3

  7

  -9

  -10

  -14

  Health7

  1,037,544

  801,192

  20,000

  117,000

  -13

  0

  -98

  -83

  -54

  Home Office

  2,262,665

  2,012,161

  0

  0

  -8

  -8

  -8

  -7

  -2

  Home Office—Prisons

  26,950,553

  18,141,743

  1,500,000

  1,200,000

  2

  -4

  -3

  -8

  0

  Inland Revenue

  11,251,064

  9,054,230

  363,500

  567,744

  1

  2

  6

  12

  16

  Lord Chancellor's Department2

  5,848,176

  5,889,680

  2,050,500

  0

  -1

  2

  8

  8

  11

  ODA8

  428,999

  372,396

  0

  158,000

  —

  -4

  0

  3

  11

  National Heritage9

  78,667

  75,414

  0

  1,000

  —

  —

  —

  —

  -7

  National Savings

  1,350,214

  1,043,471

  933,182

  951,717

  3

  8

  12

  17

  19

  Northern Ireland

  9,306,333

  11,107,276

  838,500

  870,000

  1

  2

  5

  9

  13

  Scottish Office8

  1,101,890

  1,139,914

  37,400

  60,000

  —

  -6

  -8

  -12

  -18

  Scottish Court Service8

  913,405

  755,401

  150,000

  80,000

  —

  2

  5

  18

  33

  Scottish Prison Service

  2,780,847

  2,424,377

  0

  372,690

  -1

  0

  4

  7

  7

  Social Security10

  15,226,030

  14,236,000

  1,234,700

  1,000,000

  -1

  -1

  -4

  -1

  3

  Trade and Industry

  4,599,088

  4,130,682

  0

  0

  5

  5

  0

  5

  14

  Transport11

  2,983,437

  2,940,057

  313,300

  235,205

  7

  8

  12

  17

  15

  Treasury

  286,227

  233,199

  2,689

  1,855

  8

  4

  -9

  0

  5

  Welsh Office

  513,711

  543,700

  27,693

  11,933

  1

  2

  2

  4

  3

  Total

  107,834,213

  94,160,812

  10,033,519

  8,377,484

  0.5

  -0.3

  -0.4

  1.3

  5.9

  Table 2: Government estate—energy efficiency performance1

  Civil Departments, including Agencies

  Performance against energy and cost indicators, relative to 1990–91 (positive figures represent per cent. progress)

  Adjusted for estate and weather changes

  Adjusted for weather changes only

  Fossil fuel

  Electricity

  Total kWh

  Total cost

  CO2

  Total CO2

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1994–95

  1995–96

  FF

  17

  29

  -14

  -15

  9

  17

  -2

  1

  0

  4

  1

  2

  MAFF-Laboratories

  -9

  7

  -41

  -44

  -17

  -6

  -29

  -24

  -23

  -9

  -36

  -21

  Cabinet Office

  6

  39

  10

  -1

  7

  29

  9

  15

  10

  20

  -8

  -6

  Customs and Excise

  25

  48

  12

  13

  19

  32

  14

  20

  17

  25

  -24

  -12

  Education and

  -15

  -29

  -122

  -104

  -57

  -58

  -96

  -85

  -78

  -69

  -21

  -16

  Employment

  21

  19

  1

  0

  15

  12

  8

  4

  9

  5

  -8

  -2

  Environment

  31

  40

  2

  0

  24

  31

  14

  16

  23

  26

  21

  25

  Environment—QEII CC

  -76

  -52

  0

  -1

  -28

  -19

  -8

  -6

  -10

  -7

  -10

  -7

  FCO

  20

  23

  -19

  -26

  4

  3

  -10

  -14

  -8

  -10

  0

  -1

  Health

  4

  33

  -112

  -84

  -40

  -11

  -83

  -54

  -67

  -40

  -73

  -21

  Home Office

  -2

  5

  -9

  -5

  -4

  2

  -7

  -2

  -5

  0

  -6

  3

  Home Office—Prisons

  2

  12

  -24

  -18

  -1

  9

  -8

  0

  1

  10

  -12

  -2

  Inland Revenue

  17

  23

  10

  13

  14

  19

  12

  16

  14

  18

  19

  23

  Lord Chancellor's Department

  24

  29

  0

  2

  17

  21

  8

  11

  11

  14

  -3

  -2

  ODA2

  -16

  -8

  9

  17

  -7

  I

  3

  11

  2

  10

  1

  9

  National Heritage2

  —

  -11

  —

  -6

  —

  -9

  —

  -7

  —

  -7

  —

  —7

  National Savings

  21

  18

  17

  19

  19

  19

  17

  19

  18

  19

  18

  21

  Northern Ireland

  14

  18

  8

  11

  12

  15

  9

  13

  10

  24

  -4

  12

  Scottish Office2

  7

  18

  -23

  -39

  -1

  3

  -12

  -18

  -8

  -8

  0

  -7

  Scottish Courts2

  20

  39

  16

  30

  19

  36

  18

  33

  18

  34

  -3

  14

  Scottish Prison Service

  12

  15

  -2

  -6

  10

  13

  7

  7

  10

  10

  5

  5

  Social Security

  23

  26

  -15

  -9

  12

  16

  -1

  3

  2

  7

  -15

  -9

  Trade and Industry

  34

  47

  -6

  1

  20

  31

  5

  14

  10

  19

  32

  39

  Transport

  30

  32

  13

  10

  24

  24

  17

  15

  20

  18

  41

  39

  Treasury

  -2

  16

  1

  0

  -1

  11

  0

  5

  4

  10

  22

  30

  Welsh Office

  17

  38

  1

  -6

  10

  18

  4

  3

  7

  7

  23

  17

  Total

  12.1

  19.7

  -5.6

  -2.9

  7.8

  14.1

  1.3

  5.9

  5.6

  11.8

  -1.8

  5.7

  * Base year is not 1990–91. Agreed base year therefore used for the purposes of these calculations.
  548 549

  Table 3: Government estate—energy efficiency performance12, 13

  Ministry of Defence

  Performance against energy and cost indicators, relative to 1990–91 (positive figures represent per cent. progress)

  Adjusted for estate and weather changes

  Adjusted for weather changes only

  Fossil fuel

  Electricity

  Total kWh

  Total cost

  CO2

  Total CO2

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1994–95

  1995–96

  Civil

  15

  25

  11

  1

  13

  17

  12

  8

  12

  11

  -7

  -8

  Navy

  14

  25

  33

  36

  18

  28

  25

  32

  26

  34

  13

  21

  Army

  11

  17

  18

  20

  13

  17

  15

  18

  16

  21

  16

  25

  RAF

  13

  23

  10

  9

  12

  20

  11

  15

  12

  17

  21

  25

  Procurement Executive

  n/a

  23

  n/a

  21

  n/a

  22

  n/a

  22

  n/a

  22

  n/a

  22

  DERA

  10

  17

  0

  3

  7

  10

  5

  6

  6

  7

  6

  7

  Total

  12.4

  20.3

  16.6

  17.9

  13.3

  19.8

  14.7

  18.9

  15.9

  21.1

  16.0

  23.0

  Table 4: Government estate-energy efficiency performance

  Entire Government estate

  Performance against energy and cost indicators, relative to 1990–91 (positive figures represent per cent. progress)

  Adjusted for estate and weather changes

  Adjusted for weather changes only

  Fossil fuel

  Electricity

  Total kWh

  Total cost

  CO2

  Total CO2

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1994–95

  1995–96

  Civil Departments

  12.1

  19.7

  -5.6

  -2.9

  7.8

  14.1

  1.3

  5.9

  5.6

  11.8

  -1.8

  5.7

  MOD

  12.4

  20.3

  16.6

  17.9

  13.3

  19.8

  14.7

  18.9

  15.9

  21.1

  16.0

  23.0

  Total

  12.3

  20.1

  9.4

  11.1

  11.6

  18.1

  10.4

  4.8

  12.7

  18.2

  10.4

  17.6

  *Some Departments have a different base year to 1990–91. The agreed base year has been used for the purposes of this table, where appropriate.

  Table 5: Government estate—energy and cost indicators

  Civil Departments including Agencies

  Energy indicator

  Cost indicator

  Fossil fuel k Wh/m2

  Electricity k Wh/m2

  Fossil fuel £/m2

  Electricity £/m2

  1990–91

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1990–91

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1990–91

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1990–91

  1994–95

  1995–96

  MAFF

  292

  244

  209

  103

  117

  119

  3.65

  3.05

  2.61

  6.17

  7.02

  7.12

  MAFF—Laboratories

  715

  779

  665

  237

  335

  340

  8.94

  9.74

  8.32

  14.21

  20.08

  20.42

  Cabinet Office

  290

  271

  176

  94

  85

  95

  3.62

  3.39

  2.20

  5.65

  5.07

  5.68

  Customs and Excise

  161

  121

  84

  130

  115

  113

  2.01

  1.51

  1.05

  7.80

  6.90

  6.78

  Education and

  149

  171

  192

  96

  214

  196

  1.86

  2.14

  2.40

  5.76

  12.81

  11.73

  Employment

  210

  166

  169

  91

  89

  94

  2.62

  2.08

  2.24

  5.44

  5.36

  5.67

  Environment

  282

  194

  169

  87

  86

  88

  3.53

  2.43

  2.11

  5.23

  5.13

  5.25

  Environment—QEII CC

  153

  269

  233

  270

  271

  272

  1.91

  3.37

  2.91

  16.21

  16.28

  16.30

  FCO

  217

  173

  167

  145

  173

  183

  2.71

  2.16

  2.09

  8.71

  10.41

  10.97

  Health

  174

  167

  116

  107

  227

  197

  2.17

  2.08

  1.45

  6.42

  13.60

  11.82

  Home Office

  312

  318

  297

  136

  149

  143

  3.90

  3.98

  3.71

  8.18

  8.91

  8.58

  Home Office Prisons

  508

  497

  446

  69

  86

  82

  6.36

  6.21

  5.57

  4.15

  5.15

  4.89

  Inland Revenue

  166

  138

  127

  105

  95

  92

  2.08

  1.72

  1.59

  6.33

  5.68

  5.51

  Lord Chancellor's Department

  255

  195

  181

  107

  107

  105

  3.19

  2.44

  2.26

  6.42

  6.42

  6.31

  ODA1

  381

  444

  411

  220

  200

  182

  4.77

  5.55

  5.14

  13.23

  11.98

  10.92

  National Heritage1

  156

  156

  174

  141

  141

  150

  1.96

  1.96

  2.18

  8.48

  8.48

  8.99

  National Savings

  191

  151

  156

  208

  173

  168

  2.39

  1.88

  1.96

  12.49

  10.40

  10.10

  Northern Ireland

  234

  202

  193

  109

  101

  97

  2.92

  2.52

  2.41

  6.53

  6.04

  5.84

  Scottish Office1

  258

  239

  211

  91

  112

  126

  3.22

  2.99

  2.63

  5.45

  6.71

  7.57

  Scottish Courts1

  163

  130

  100

  64

  54

  45

  2.03

  1.62

  1.25

  3.86

  3.24

  2.70

  Scottish Prison Service

  533

  470

  451

  67

  68

  72

  6.67

  5.87

  5.64

  4.04

  4.10

  4.29

  Social Security

  278

  215

  207

  103

  119

  113

  3.48

  2.69

  2.59

  6.20

  7.12

  6.76

  Trade and Industry

  372

  246

  198

  196

  208

  194

  4.65

  3.07

  2.47

  11.77

  12.48

  11.63

  Transport

  196

  137

  134

  114

  100

  103

  2.45

  1.72

  1.68

  6.84

  5.98

  6.18

  Treasury

  246

  250

  207

  107

  105

  107

  3.08

  3.12

  2.59

  6.40

  6.32

  6.40

  Welsh Office

  158

  131

  98

  126

  125

  133

  1.97

  1.64

  1.22

  7.55

  7.48

  8.00

  Total

  311

  274

  250

  101

  107

  104

  3.89

  3.42

  3.13

  6.07

  6.41

  6.25

  * Base year is not 1990–91. Agreed base year therefore used for the purposes of these calculations.

  1 Progress is expressed as a percentage relative to the 1990–91 base year value of the performance indicator in question. Positive figures represent improvement. The standard indicator, against which the target to improve energy efficiency by 15 per cent. by 31 March 1996 is measured, is obtained by weather-correcting energy consumption and converting to costs using "standard prices" for fuel (6p/kWh for electricity and 1.25p/kWh for all fossil fuels) then dividing by floor area. Conversion to money both reflects the relative costs of electricity and fossil fuel and their environmental impact, and the use of fixed prices eliminates the effects of tariff changes which distort the comparison of fuel bills. In August 1995 a report was provided for the Environment Select Committee which gave more detailed background on the energy efficiency initiative and on the indicators used.

  550 551
  2 Although figures have been prepared on a consistent basis, caution should be exercised in comparing the energy use of different Departments and Agencies because of differences in their estate and the nature of their work. For example, the operational needs of prisons and the QEII Conference Centre mean that they have a pattern of energy use which is different from that of a Department which has predominantly office accommodation. Expenditure on energy and investment figures are included for information only. Investment figures relate to clearly identifiable energy efficiency measures undertaken by Departments. Energy efficiency is an integral part of all major construction projects, including building refurbishment and plant replacement; for example, the investment figure for the Lord Chancellor's Department is an estimate, a large proportion of which is accounted for by works justified on operational grounds and does not reflect specifically the proportion of works attributed to energy efficiency.

  3 The average performance figure for the civil estate cannot be derived by simply adding together the individual Departmental progress and dividing by the number of Departments because this does not allow for the large variations in consumption. The correct figure is obtained by calculating the value of the performance indicator for the year in question and the base year, for the civil estate as a whole, and calculating the reduction relative to the base year.

  4Energy performance is improving despite the addition of new buildings, major refurbishment of specialised buildings, continued growth in the use of information technology, the business led demands of Agencies and longer working hours. Depots have been removed from the reporting mechanism.

  5 For consistency with earlier years of the energy efficiency initiative, the Departments of Education and Employment have been reported separately, in the format prior to the formation of the DFEE. Figures for ACAS (now part of DTI) and HSE (now part of DOE) have been included with those for Employment Department and Employment Service.

  6 QEII Conference Centre is reported separately because of its business led demands.

  7 Since the beginning of the initiative the Department of Health estate has reduced from a large number of naturally ventilated buildings to five densely occupied, mainly air-conditioned, buildings with consequent substantial savings of rent and CILOR. Only 17 per cent. of the Department's 1990–91 estate remains on the current portfolio and comparisons between the 1990 data and current performance are therefore unreliable and do not reflect the real improvements achieved.

  8 Base year is 1991–92.

  9 Base year is 1994–95 by which time energy efficient lighting and other improvements already installed. Increased Information Technology, and also constant air conditioning during 1995's hot summer months.

  10 Workload is increasing, affecting occupancy and requiring offices to be occupied for longer, increasing the use of energy. Greater use of information technology, expansion of the use of air conditioning and the upgrading of lighting levels has increased electricity consumption.

  11 Figures exclude the Vehicle Inspectorate Agency. Own investment in energy efficiency advised as 8 per cent.

  12 The Ministry of Defence (MOD) estate is different from the rest of the Government estate, and has been undergoing more radical changes. It is therefore treated in a slightly different way. In common with the civil estate, it has greatly increased its use of information technology. Full data for the years between 1990–91 and 1993–94 are not available, so the table shows the results for 1994–95 and 1995–96.

  13 Floor area cannot be calculated for the majority of the MOD estate. However, to enable comparisons with data for the civil estate which is adjusted for changes in floor area, a proxy has been used. Changes in consumption arising from estate changes have been estimated as a result of estate adjustments, with appropriate adjustments made to the gross data for the years following the change. In common with other Departments, the MOD has a target to achieve a 15 per cent. improvement by 31 March 1996. Positive figures represent improvement.

  Granny Annexes (Council Tax)
  Mr. David Martin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement about the assessment of granny annexes for council tax purposes. [9857]

  Mr. Gummer
  Under current legislation, if a building or part of a building, such as a granny annex, is a self-contained unit of living accommodation, then it is assessed for council tax purposes as a separate dwelling.

  In some circumstances, this means that families whose dependent relatives live with them may face two council tax bills, one for each part of their property.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales and I now propose to amend these rules, so that in future a self-contained unit within a single property will not be treated as a separate dwelling if it is occupied by an elderly or disabled member of the family living in the rest of the property. This will relieve the burden which presently falls on some families who have chosen to provide support for close family members under the same roof with a measure of independence.

  Departmental Cash Limits
  Mr. Congdon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proposals he has to change his Department's cash limits for 1996–97. [9947]

  Mr. Curry
  The DOE/LACAP (local authority capital) non-voted cash limit will be increased by £3,529,000 from £1,741,558,000 to £1,745,087,000. The increase is due to the take-up of end-year flexibility for supplementary credit approvals to local authorities to enable funding of 552
  additional cash incentive scheme grants. The EYF entitlement of £4,105,000 announced by the Chief Secretary on 12 July 1996—Official Report, columns 327–28—was subsequently recalculated following revised forecast outturn data. The increase will be charged to the reserve and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.

  Local Government Commission
  Mr. Elletson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on his response to the recommendations from the Local Government Commission following its recent reviews of Blackburn, Blackpool, Halton, Medway Towns, Peterborough, The Wrekin, Thurrock and Warrington. [9948]

  Mr. Curry
  The Local Government Commission has made recommendations for changes to the district warding arrangements in all eight areas that it has reviewed. It has also made some recommendations for changes to parish boundaries and parish electoral arrangements.

  I have decided to accept all of the Commission's recommendations. It is important that the process for making local authority electoral arrangements should be seen to be fully independent. For this reason, it is the Government's intention not to modify the substance of electoral recommendations from the Local Government Commission.

  My Department will be consulting on draft orders so that these recommendations can be implemented in time for the elections to the future unitary councils on 1 May 1997.

  Sulphur Protocol
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will publish a strategy for meeting the United Kingdom's commitments under the second sulphur protocol of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe; and if he will make a statement. [10278]

  Mr. Gummer
  I am pleased to announce that the United Kingdom has today ratified the UNECE second sulphur protocol. We are among the first handful of countries to do so. Achievement of the emission reduction targets in the protocol will mean even better protection for our sensitive ecosystems, forests, lakes and buildings, as well as benefits for our continental European neighbours. It will also lead to substantial improvements in the quality of the air we breathe which will be good for asthma sufferers and for everyone who has breathing problems.

  The protocol needs ratification by 16 countries to become fully effective. So far 28 countries have signed it but only five, including now the United Kingdom, have ratified. It is clearly important that all those who have signed the protocol should now ratify it. Only by concerted action across the whole of Europe shall we deal effectively with the problem of acid rain.

  Our commitment is to reducing emission of sulphur dioxide by 80 per cent. by 2010 compared with 1980 levels. I am publishing today a national strategy setting out how this will be achieved.

  The figures for 1995 reveal that emissions from the major sources—power stations, refineries and large industrial boilers and furnaces—have been reduced by 55 per cent. since 1980. This shows that we have already made enormous strides in tackling acid rain.

  We have buried the old myth that Britain is the dirty man of Europe. It never was true. Our policies on this, and on the whole range of environmental matters, show how serious is this country's commitment to the environment. We have a record of which we can be rightly proud.

  I am pleased to announce also that changes have been made to the national plan which gives effect in the United Kingdom to the requirements of the European Community large combustion plant directive. The aim of these changes, which were widely welcomed by those who commented on the consultation proposals issued in the summer, is to ensure that future allocations of emissions quota for both sulphur dioxide and oxides of nitrogen under the national plan are more closely in line with regulatory consents under integrated pollution control.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Legislation
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many items of legislation relating to his Department have been repealed since January 1994; how many statutory instruments were introduced during the same period; and how many of the latter were(a) deregulatory and (b) fee orders. [9366]
  554
  Mr. Ancram
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to her by my hon. Friend the Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Bates) earlier today.

  Prednisolone
  Mr. Flynn
  to ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will estimate how many people(a) have been prescribed and (b) took the steroid prednisolone in Northern Ireland in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement. [9604]

  Mr. Moss
  It is not possible to identify the number of patients who were prescribed or took prednisolone. Data collected cover only the number of prescriptions dispensed in Northern Ireland, and not how many patients were prescribed any medicinal product.

  Hospital Admissions
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will estimate(a) how many and (b) the percentage of people who have been admitted to hospital as a direct result of complications after (i) surgery and (ii) medicinal treatment in Northern Ireland in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement. [9605]

  Mr. Moss
  The information is not available centrally.

  Care in the Community
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will estimate(a) how many and (b) the percentage of diagnosed mentally ill who are currently receiving care in the community; and if he will make a statement. [9611]

  Mr. Moss
  It is estimated that over 100,000 people seen by GPs each year are diagnosed as having some form of mental illness. Over 99 per cent. receive treatment in the community. Mental health is a key area in the "Government's Regional Strategy for Health and Social Wellbeing 1997–2002".

  General Practitioners
  Dr. Hendron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) what are the building cost location factors for general medical practitioners in Northern Ireland; [9684]

  (2) for what reasons the building cost location factor for general medical practitioners in Northern Ireland is lower than the factors for England and Wales; [9685]

  (3) when the last review was undertaken of building cost location factors for general medical practitioners in (a) Northern Ireland and (b) the United Kingdom; [9686]

  (4) what plans he has to bring the building cost location factor for general medical practitioners in Northern Ireland into line with that for England and Wales. [9687]

  Mr. Moss
  Responsibility for the subjects in this question has been delegated to the Health Estates under its chief executive, Mr. R. H. Browne. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from R. H. Browne to Dr. Joe Hendron, dated 17 December 1996:
  I have been asked to reply to your recent Parliamentary Questions concerning the building cost location factor for Northern Ireland.
  555
  PQ2066
  The building cost location factor for Northern Ireland is currently 0.75.

  PQ2067
  The building cost location factor for Northern Ireland is lower than the factors for England and Wales because the cost of construction, as measured by the Building Cost Information Service provided by the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, is lower in Northern Ireland than in England or Wales.

  PQ2068
  The location factors for General Medical Practitioners in Northern Ireland and Great Britain were reviewed for 1996–97, applicable from 1st April 1996. These location factors were produced by the BCIS and were current at that time.

  PQ2069
  The principles of the GP Cost Rent Schemes and the source of the location factors are the same throughout the United Kingdom. By definition the location factors will vary according to local current building costs.
  It is hoped that the above information fully explains the situation but should you require any further details I will be happy to provide them.

  Information Technology Projects
  Ms Church
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, pursuant to his answer of 11 November,Official Report, column 69, what were the proposed annual savings for the nine IT projects in the bands above and including £1 million to £2 million, undertaken since 1992; and what have been the realised annual savings. [6711]

  Sir John Wheeler
  [holding answer 28 November 1996]The information is not available in the form requested. However, the available information is listed:

  Cost band (£ million)

  Number of IT projects

  Proposed savings (£ million)

  Realised savings (£ million)

  1–2

  2

  0.959

  10.441

  3

  8

  2—

  1

  3—

  6.8

  2–3

  1

  1.3

  2—

  3–4

  1

  0.701

  2—

  5–6

  1

  This project has been curtailed

  1 In addition to unquantifiable productivity gains.

  2 Implementation of project not yet complete, therefore realised savings not available.

  3 Information not readily available. To provide the information would incur disproportionate cost.

  Appointments
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the party political affiliations of the appointments which he made to statutory bodies and boards(a) between 1 April 1986 and 31 March 1996 and (b) 1 April and 1 July 1996. [9157]

  Sir John Wheeler
  [holding answer 16 December 1996]Information on the party political affiliation of those appointed to statutory bodies and boards during the period in question is not available. This information will, however, be available in the future for those persons appointed to bodies which fall within the remit of the Northern Ireland Commissioner for Public Appointments, in line with the terms of the commissioner's guidance published on 1 July 1996.
  556
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list each appointment which he made to statutory boards and bodies between 1 April 1986 and 31 March 1996, the length of time of each of the appointments and the remuneration paid in respect of each appointment; and how many of the appointments were of members of political parties. [9156]

  Sir John Wheeler
  [holding answer 16 December 1996]To identify each appointment made and the remuneration level involved over a 10-year period would incur disproportionate costs. Current remuneration levels are, however, set out in "Public Bodies 1995", a copy of which is available in the Library of the House. Information is not available on the number of appointees during the period from April 1986 to March 1996 who were members of political parties.

  Prisoners
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) what estimate he has made of the number of drug dependent prisoners currently detained in prisons in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement. [9201]

  (2) for what reasons women convicted of terrorist offences are routinely strip-searched when leaving or returning to prison from periods of parole; and how many women prisoners were strip-searched in each of the last five years; [9171]

  (3) what representations he has received in respect of discrimination against women convicted of terrorist offences. [9280]

  Sir John Wheeler
  [holding answer 16 December 1996]Responsibility for the subjects in these questions 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. Max Madden, dated 16 December 1996:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to the 3 Parliamentary Questions you have tabled. You requested the information regarding:
  the number of drug dependent prisoners currently detained in prisons in Northern Ireland;
  the reasons why women convicted of terrorist offences are routinely strip-searched when leaving or returning to prison from periods of parole and how many women were strip-searched in each of the last 5 years; and
  what representations the Secretary of State has received in respect of discrimination against women convicted of terrorist offences.
  There are currently no persons detained in prisons in Northern Ireland who are registered as being drug dependent.
  Full searching (referred to as strip-searching in your question) is a necessary measure to maintain prison security. A full search is a visual search only and at no time is the prisoner entirely undressed. Prison staff do not have the power to conduct any body cavity search although they may require prisoners to open their mouths.
  All prisoners (male and female) are routinely full searched when leaving or returning to the prison to inhibit the passage of items such as explosives, weapons, drugs and other contraband into and out of the prison in order to reduce the risk of escape and for the general safety of prisoners, staff and visitors.
  The average female population and the number of female committals in each of the last 5 calendar years was:—
  557

  Average female population

  Number of female committals

  1996 to 31st October 1996

  30

  169

  1995

  35

  159

  1994

  41

  198

  1993

  40

  158

  1992

  41

  166

  As to the question of representations made to the Secretary of State, I regret we do not keep statistics in a form which would enable us to answer it.

  I hope that this information is helpful.

HEALTH

  "New Labour's Public Expenditure Plans"
  Mr. Derek Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what costs quoted in the document, "New Labour's Public Expenditure Plans" were prepared in his Department; what detailed assumptions and interpretations were provided to officials in his Department to enable preparation of each cost; and what was the total cost to public funds of preparing each estimate. [6345]

  Mr. Horam
  The Department of Health, in conjunction with Her Majesty's Treasury, prepared factual material relating to costings published in "New Labour's Public Expenditure Plans" numbered 56 to 63. The detailed assumptions and interpretations that were provided to officials are set out in my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary's reply to the hon. Gentleman of today. It is not the normal working practice to keep a record of the time spent in providing factual information to Ministers and it is not therefore possible to offer a reliable estimate of the costs involved.

  Family Health Services
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has for the future of family health services. [9495]

  Mr. Dorrell
  The Government today publish a White Paper, "Primary Care: Delivering the Future", which responds to many of the issues raised in the primary care debate launched by the Government last year. It sets out practical proposals to improve further the quality and accessibility of primary care services and to offer improved development and career opportunities for the professionals who work in them. "Primary Care: Delivering the Future" complements the proposals set out in the recent White Paper, "Primary Care: Choice and Opportunity". Copies of both White Papers are available in the Library.

  Secure Accommodation (Young People)
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many young people were being held in local authority secure accommodation(a) on criminal grounds and (b) on care grounds by age and by gender on the latest date for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement; [9123]
  558
  (2) how many young people in local authority secure accommodation on criminal grounds were (a) on remand, (b) sentenced under section 52(2) of the Children and Young Persons Act 1993 and (c) held on other grounds, on the last date for which figures are available. [9083]

  Mr. Burns
  I refer the hon. Member to table D in "Children Accommodated in Secure Units year ending 31 March 1996, England" A/F 96/21, copies of which are available in the Library. Information on which part of section 53 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 under which a young person is detained is not collected centrally.

  Renal Services (Greater Manchester)
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what response has been received from the South Manchester University Hospitals NHS trust to the consultation document on the future of renal services in Greater Manchester; when he expects a decision to be announced; and if he will make a statement. [9180]

  Mr. Horam
  The response from South Manchester University Hospitals NHS trust is one of many responses to consultation which West Penine health authority is evaluating. The right hon. Member may wish to approach Mr. P. Hadfield, chairman of the trust, or Mr. J. S. Downs chairman of West Pennine health authority, for further details. The lead purchaser will present its evaluation to the seven participating health authorities in mid-January 1997. Members of each authority will then be given the opportunity to consider the proposals further.

  East London and City Health Authority
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his oral statement of 2 December concerning future funding of the East London and City health authority,Official Report, column 686, what was the source of the additional funds he referred to; and when his decisions on the amounts and purposes will be (a) determined and (b) published. [9318]

  Mr. Malone
  From within the overall settlement for hospital and community health services, revenue funds have been set aside for a number of special purposes.

  The procedure and timetable for most of the schemes involved were set out in a circular letter to health authorities—EL(96)109—copies of which are available in the Library.

  Decisions on applications for special assistance to health authorities undergoing structural or strategic change will be determined and published individually.

  Legislation
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many items of legislation relating to his Department have been repealed since January 1994; how many statutory instruments were introduced during the same period; and how many of the latter were(a) deregulatory and (b) fee orders. [9362]

  Mr. Horam
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster gave her today.

  Prednisolone
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment his Department has made of (i) afflictions for which the steroid Prednisolone is prescribed, (ii) the side-effects which have been recorded and (iii) the alternative treatments there are for such conditions; and if he will make a statement. [9647]

  Mr. Malone
  Prednisolone is a corticosteroid licensed for more than 70 specific indications which are serious or life threatening, such as asthma, malignant diseases, and arthritic disorders.

  The side effects of Prednisolone are well known and documented in product information for doctors and patients and in the British National Formulary, copies of which are available in the Library.

  Other treatments are available for many of the diseases for which Prednisolone is indicated. These are not usually alternatives, but are used to treat symptoms rather than modify the disease process.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people(a) have been prescribed and (b) have taken the steroid Prednisolone in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement. [9646]

  Mr. Malone
  It is not possible to identify the number of people who were prescribed Prednisolone.

  Medical Negligence Claims
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the total compensation paid by the NHS in medical negligence claims in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement. [9651]

  Mr. Malone
  I refer the hon. Member to the figures that were given to the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn), on 6 March 1995,Official Report, columns 41–42, and 17 May 1996, column, 586, and to the hon. Member for Dulwich (Ms Jowell) on 28 November 1996, Official Report, columns 371–72.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many medical negligence claims have been (i) brought and (ii) been successful against NHS physicians in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement. [9650]

  Mr. Malone
  The information requested is not held centrally.

  Dental Registrations
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many new registrations on the dental register have been made in each year since 1985; and if he will make a statement. [9443]
  560
  Mr. Malone
  The number of new registrations added to the dental register since 1985 is in the table.

  Number of new registrations on the dental register from 1985 to date

  Registered for

  Total

  1985

  1,103

  1986

  1,036

  1987

  1,083

  1988

  1,038

  1989

  1,047

  1990

  1,206

  1991

  1,075

  1992

  1,141

  1993

  1,254

  19941

  571

  1995

  1,041

  Source:

  Dental register.

  Note:

  1 The drop in the number added to the register in 1994 is due to the effect of the extension in 1990 of the British dental undergraduate course from four years and one term to five years.

  Private Health Insurance
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the number of people with private health insurance cover in each year since 1979; and if he will make a statement. [9447]

  Mr. Horam
  The Department does not collect this information.

  Medicines Control Agency
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the names of the members of the Medicines Control Agency together with their(a) other employers, (b) other voluntary and paid work undertaken, (c) length of service and (d) areas of expertise; if he will set out the reasons for their appointment in each case; and if he will make a statement. [9653]

  Mr. Malone
  The Medicines Control Agency, MCA, is an agency of the Department of Health whose staff are employees of the Department of Health on standard civil service terms and conditions.

  Decisions regarding the licensing of medicines are made by the licensing authority—United Kingdom Health Ministers. For all new drugs, the licensing authority seeks the advice of the Committee on Safety of Medicines before deciding whether they should be licensed.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the(a) total and (b) percentage of funding provided for the Medicines Control Agency by the pharmaceutical companies in the current year; and if he will make a statement. [9652]

  Mr. Malone
  Apart from interest earned on bank balances and minor receipts for miscellaneous services, the Medicines Control Agency's income receipts for 1996–97 are currently estimated to total about £25 million, all of which will comprise fees from pharmaceutical companies.

  Prescription Drugs Damages Cases
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many prescription drugs damages cases (i) have been brought and (ii) were successful against(a) the NHS and (b) pharmaceutical companies in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement. [9649]

  Mr. Malone
  The information requested is not held centrally.

  Complications Admissions
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will estimate(a) how many and (b) the percentage of people who have been admitted to hospital as a direct result of complications after (i) surgery and (ii) medicinal treatment in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement. [9648]

  Mr. Horam
  Information on hospital admissions following surgical and medical care is set out in the table. As to the number of hospital admissions relating to an adverse reaction to a medicament, I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 14 November,Official Report, columns 334–35.

  Complications of surgical and medical care and percentage of all operations and procedures (ICD codes 996–999): Finished consultant episodes

  England

  ICD code

  Description

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  996

  Complications peculiar to certain specified procedures

  24,152

  30,667

  36,108

  39,976

  44,168

  997

  Complications affecting specified body systems, not elsewhere classified

  5,432

  6,663

  9,082

  10,408

  11,810

  998

  Other complications of procedures, not elsewhere classified

  22,687

  25,860

  29,629

  31,797

  35,629

  999

  Complications of medical care, not elsewhere classified

  641

  669

  826

  887

  968

  Totals

  52,912

  68,889

  75,645

  83,068

  92,575

  Percentage

  1.2

  1.4

  1.5

  1.5

  1.6

  Campaigns currently running

  Campaigns planned over the next six months

  Cost

  Agencies undertaking work

  Planned duration

  (i) In total £

  (ii) To Department £

  Fire Prevention Burning Christmas Tree

  —

  37,000

  Faulds Advertising

  3 weeks

  Fire Action Plan

  —

  164,000

  Faulds Advertising

  4 weeks

  Tackling Violence

  1Still to be agreed

  Faulds Advertising

  16 weeks

  Severe Weather

  2400,000

  2200,000

  Barkers Scotland

  14 weeks

  Pre-School Vouchers— procedures and processes

  1Still to be agreed

  Barkers Scotland

  Phase 1–6 weeks Phase 2–3 weeks

  Christmas Drink

  —

  52,000

  Faulds Advertising

  3 weeks

  Driving Food Hygiene

  1Still to be agreed

  Faulds Advertising

  4 weeks

  Firearms Control

  —

  40,000

  Faulds Advertising

  Still to be finalised

  Promotion of Historic

  1Still to be agreed

  Marr Associates

  16 weeks

  Properties and Public Information3

  Absent Voters

  —

  47,000

  Faulds Advertising

  1 week

  Multiple Chemical Sensitivity Disorder
  Mr. Alfred Morris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has had from the charity Miracles in relation to recognition of multiple chemical sensitivity disorder in the United Kingdom and other issues; what response he is making; what action he plans to take; and if he will make a statement. [9425]

  Mr. Horam
  I shall let the right hon. Member have such information as is available as soon as possible.

SCOTLAND

  "New Labour's Public Expenditure Plans"
  Mr. Derek Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what costs quoted in the document, "New Labour's Public Expenditure Plans", were prepared in his Department; what detailed assumptions and interpretations were provided to officials in his Department to enable preparation of each cost; and what was the total cost to public funds of preparing each estimate. [6346]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The Scottish Office, in conjunction with the Treasury, prepared factual material relating to costings published in "New Labour's Public Expenditure Plans" numbered 81, 82, 83 and 89. The detailed assumptions and interpretations that were provided to officials are set out in the reply given today by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary. It is not the normal working practice to keep a record of the time spent in providing factual information to Ministers and it is not therefore possible to offer a reliable estimate of the costs involved.

  Publicity
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for 35,629 Scotland what promotional and public information campaigns his Department is(a) currently running and (b) planning to run during the next six months; and for each campaign (i) how much it will cost, (1) in total and (2) to his Department, (ii) what agencies or bodies are undertaking the work and (iii) what is its planned duration. [7411]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Details of current and planned promotional and public information campaigns by my Department are set out in the table.
  563
  1 Media schedules and costs have still to be finalised.

  2 The figures given are indicative. Final costs will be dictated by the frequency of the campaign which will be triggered by severe weather conditions.

  3 Historic Scotland.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much his Department has spent on promotional or public information campaigns in each of the last five years; and how much he estimates will be spent on these campaigns during the (i) current and (ii) next financial years. [7536]

  Mr. Forsyth
  Details of expenditure on promotional or public information campaigns by my Department in each of the last five years, and estimated spend for the current and next financial year is as follows:

  Spend for each of the last five years

  £

  1991–92

  1,220,000

  1992–93

  1,366,000

  1993–94

  1,058,000

  1994–95

  1,682,000

  1995–96

  1,819,000

  Estimated spend for current financial year

  1996–97

  1 1,860,000

  1996–97

  2 1,350,000

  Estimated spend for financial year

  1997–98

  3 2,000,000

  1 This figure is the original estimate based on spend to date and proposed spend to the end of the financial year.

  2 This figure is an additional estimate based on spend to date and proposed spend for three new public information campaigns running in the latter part of the current financial year: tackling violent crime, food hygiene awareness and severe weather warning.

  3 Costs are estimated figures only. Departmental budgets for next financial year have not yet been agreed.

  Locate in Scotland
  Mr. Keith Hill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the total grant made by the Scottish Office to Locate in Scotland; and how much of this grant was spent in advertising in England to encourage companies to relocate in Scotland in the last year for which information is available. [8105]

  Mr. Kynoch
  In 1995–96 Locate in Scotland had a total budget of £8.9 million, none of which was spent on advertising to encourage companies in England to relocate to Scotland.

  EU Institutions (Scottish Interests)
  Mr. Bill Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the means by which the Government ensure that Scottish interests are effectively represented in the institutions of the European Union. [8934]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Scottish interests are effectively represented to the institutions of the European Union by being incorporated into the view of the United Kingdom. I am able to ensure that this is the case by my attendance at Cabinet, and at Cabinet Committees which discuss UK policy on EU issues. In addition, Scottish Office Ministers attend Council meetings as part of the UK delegation and when matters relevant to my responsibilities as Secretary 564
  of State are discussed. As at 11 December, Scottish Office Ministers have attended 13 Councils during the current year.

  Nominations by the Government have ensured that five of the total of 24 UK members of the Committee of the Regions serve in Scottish local authorities, that the current UK judge in the Court of Justice is Scottish, and that two members of the Economic and Social Committee are Scots. My hon. Friend will be aware that Scotland is already served by eight MEPs, of whom one is a Vice President of the European Parliament. These arrangements ensure that Scottish interests are effectively represented in the institutions, and the advisory committees, of the European Union.

  Prisoner Assaults
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what were prisoner-on-prisoner assault rates in Scottish prisons in the most recent period for which figures are available. [8943]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The subject of the question relates to matters undertaken by the Scottish Prison Service. I have asked its chief executive, Mr. E. W. Frizzell, to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from E. W. Frizzell to Mr. John McFall, dated 17 December 1996:
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton has asked me to reply to your question relating to the number of prisoner-on-prisoner assaults in Scottish prisons in the most recent period for which figures are available.
  The most recent published figures are set out on page 9 of the Scottish Prison Service Annual Report and Accounts for 1995–96 (HMSO Cm 508). There were 108 such serious assaults. The figure for 1996–97 will be published in the Annual Report for that year in July 1997.

  Landfill Tax (Exemptions)
  Sir David Steel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he proposes to permit a temporary exemption to landfill tax for those local authorities who have to dispose of unsold paper for recycling, having collected the paper to meet the Government's target for recycling waste by 2000. [8920]

  Mr. Kynoch
  The scope of the tax is a matter for consideration by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

  Erskine Bridge
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the location of the gas and water pipes on the Erskine bridge; and what assessment the Health and Safety Executive has made of them. [9071]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Two water pipes and one gas pipe are situated on each side of the Erskine Bridge, in the open, underneath the footways. The structure was designed to accommodate these services and they have been in place since the bridge opened in 1971.
  565
  Following an incident on 4 August 1996 when an oilrig platform collided with the bridge, the pipes were inspected by the undertakers responsible and minor repairs carried out.

  No specific assessment of the pipes has been made by the Health and Safety Executive although it has made a number of visits to the bridge since the incident in connection with the main structural repairs.

  Legislation
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many items of legislation relating to this Department have been repealed since January 1994; how many statutory instruments were introduced during the same period; and how many of the latter were(a) deregulatory and (b) fee orders. [9367]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given today by my hon. Friend the Paymaster General.

  Island of Coll (Fuel)
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to provide short-term emergency fuel supplies to the island of Coll. [9277]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Scottish Office has no immediate plans to provide emergency fuel supplies to the island of Coll. However, arrangements for doing so have been the subject of discussions between the emergency planning unit of the Scottish Office, the local council, local suppliers and the Army.

  Mr. Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions he has had with Argyll and Bute Council about the need for short-term emergency fuel supplies for the island of Coll. [9278]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The emergency planning branch of the Scottish Office has been regularly in touch with Argyll and Bute emergency planning unit about the fuel shortage on the island of Coll. Discussions have taken place about the options for the delivery and dispensing of fuel by commercial sources and by the Army. Argyll and Bute council have deployed a diesel-powered vehicle to the island to help with transport problems.

  Local Government
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the size of each local authority area in square miles or kilometres. [9394]

  Proposals/appeals in relation to the list in force on 1 April 1993.

  Disposal of proposals/appeals

  Valuation appeal committee activities

  Region area

  Number of proposals/appeals1

  Settled before citation2

  Cited to be heard by VAC

  Settled before VAC hearing

  Heard and resolved by VAC

  Cited and not yet determined

  Scotland

  98,441

  77,721

  20,589

  15,382

  5,140

  67

  Central

  3,295

  3,040

  222

  103

  107

  12

  Dumfries and Galloway

  3,054

  2,312

  742

  559

  183

  0

  Fife

  6,722

  6,076

  646

  520

  126

  0

  Grampian

  11,211

  8,942

  2,269

  1,425

  836

  8

  Highland and Western Isles

  6,908

  4,889

  2,019

  1,259

  755

  5

  Lothian

  12,619

  8,841

  3,757

  3,248

  499

  10

  Orkney and Shetland

  384

  309

  75

  46

  29

  0

  566
  Mr. Kynoch
  The land area of each Scottish local authority was given in "The New Councils" published by the Government Statistical Service in May 1995 as follows:

  Km2

  Aberdeen city

  186

  Aberdeenshire

  6,318

  Angus

  2,181

  Argyll and Bute

  6,930

  Clackmannanshire

  157

  Dumfries and Galloway

  6,439

  Dundee city

  65

  East Ayrshire

  1,252

  East Dumbartonshire

  172

  East Lothian

  678

  East Renfrewshire

  173

  Edinburgh, city of

  262

  Falkirk

  299

  Fife

  1,323

  Glasgow city

  175

  Highland

  25,784

  Inverclyde

  162

  Midlothian

  356

  Moray

  2,238

  North Ayrshire

  884

  North Lanarkshire

  474

  Orkney Islands

  992

  Perth and Kinross

  5,311

  Renfrewshire

  261

  Scottish Borders

  4,734

  Shetland Islands

  1,438

  South Ayrshire

  1,202

  South Lanarkshire

  1,771

  Stirling

  2,196

  West Dunbartonshire

  162

  Western Isles

  3,133

  West Lothian

  425

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many(a) proposals and (b) appeals were submitted in each local authority area as a consequence of the introduction of council tax on 1 April 1993. [9398]

  Mr. Kynoch
  The available information relates to all classes of proposal to change the valuation list made to assessors and subsequent appeals. Information on proposals/appeals in relation to the valuation list in force at 1 April 1993 is available only for regions. Information on proposals/appeals in relation to the list after 1 April 1993 is available only for valuation board areas. The latest available information, giving the position up to September 1996, is given in the tables.
  567

  Proposals/appeals in relation to the list in force on 1 April 1993.

  Disposal of proposals/appeals

  Valuation appeal committee activities

  Region area

  Number of proposals/appeals1

  Settled before citation2

  Cited to be heard by VAC

  Settled before VAC hearing

  Heard and resolved by VAC

  Cited and not yet determined

  Scottish Borders

  3,003

  2,468

  535

  516

  19

  0

  Strathclyde

  39,906

  30,539

  9,367

  6,937

  2,410

  20

  Tayside

  11,339

  10,305

  957

  769

  176

  12

  Source:

  Quarterly CTAPP(ASS)(96) return for September 1996 from Assessors.

  Notes:

  1 Number of proposals/appeals lodged with Assessors Departments.

  2 Number of proposals/appeals settled between the appellant and Assessor which are therefore not cited to be heard by the VAC.

  Proposals/appeals in relation to the list after 1 April 1993.

  Disposal of proposals/appeals

  Valuation appeal committee activities

  Valuation board area

  Number of proposals/appeals1

  Settled before citation2

  Cited to be heard by VAC

  Settled before VAC hearing

  Heard and resolved by VAC

  Cited and not yet determined

  Scotland

  12,539

  7,489

  3,628

  2,281

  971

  376

  Ayrshire

  1,258

  948

  157

  81

  75

  1

  Central

  89

  85

  1

  0

  0

  1

  Dumfries and Galloway

  320

  192

  111

  63

  42

  6

  Dunbartonshire and Argyll and Bute

  1,115

  680

  320

  168

  137

  15

  Fife

  379

  180

  60

  50

  10

  0

  Glasgow

  2,752

  1,572

  1,047

  529

  257

  261

  Grampian

  1,028

  753

  202

  127

  55

  20

  Highland and Western Isles

  825

  522

  212

  124

  77

  11

  Lanark

  1,463

  764

  447

  249

  148

  50

  Lothian

  1,335

  640

  634

  531

  95

  8

  Orkney and Shetland

  37

  34

  3

  0

  3

  0

  Renfrew

  779

  278

  350

  294

  56

  0

  Scottish Borders

  203

  156

  37

  34

  3

  0

  Tayside

  956

  685

  47

  31

  13

  3

  Source:

  Quarterly CTAPP(ASS)(96) return for September 1996 from Assessors.

  Notes:

  1 Number of proposals/appeals lodged with Assessors Departments.

  2 Number of proposals/appeals settled between the appellant and Assessor which are therefore not cited to be heard by the VAC.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the number of non-domestic properties in each local authority area and their rateable value at 31 March. [9395]

  Mr. Kynoch
  The table shows the number and rateable value of non-domestic properties in each local authority area at 1 April 1996.

  Number of non-domestic subjects

  Local Authority

  Total properties

  Total rateable value (£)

  Scotland

  212,288

  3,775,326,225

  Aberdeen City

  8,924

  260,810,628

  Aberdeenshire

  11,409

  116,920,027

  Angus

  4,916

  51,597,353

  Argyll and Bute

  7,025

  66,017,596

  Clackmannanshire

  1,377

  28,011,501

  Dumfries and Galloway

  9,269

  76,797,679

  Dundee City

  6,137

  122,563,445

  East Ayrshire

  4,026

  54,957,128

  East Dunbartonshire

  2,133

  41,541,463

  East Lothian

  2,960

  62,315,999

  East Renfrewshire

  1,725

  26,948,160

  City of Edinburgh

  18,085

  511,466,503

  Falkirk

  4,963

  116,252,593

  Fife

  12,786

  254,135,448

  City of Glasgow

  27,053

  636,652,756

  Highland

  15,602

  136,590,366

  Inverclyde

  2,508

  49,017,947

  Midlothian

  2,099

  34,269,370

  Moray

  5,445

  48,373,574

  North Ayrshire

  4,857

  91,244,369

  North Lanarkshire

  8,798

  177,737,011

  568

  Number of non-domestic subjects

  Local Authority

  Total properties

  Total rateable value (£)

  Orkney Islands

  1,643

  15,665,054

  Perth and Kinross

  7,470

  92,763,007

  Shetland Islands

  1,801

  39,767,502

  Renfrewshire

  5,311

  134,353,469

  South Ayrshire

  4,440

  72,149,159

  South Lanarkshire

  9,382

  173,053,815

  Stirling

  4,373

  66,082,555

  Scottish Borders

  6,839

  49,955,742

  West Dunbartonshire

  2,590

  57,584,941

  West Lothian

  4,232

  97,506,205

  Western Isles

  2,110

  12,223,860

  Source:

  Annual RVASS return from assessors.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many appeals were lodged in each local authority area following the 1995 general revaluation. [9396]

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

  Number of appeals following the 1995 revaluation for non-domestic rates

  Valuation board

  Council

  Number of appeals1

  Number of properties2

  Ayrshire

  East Ayrshire

  2,213

  2,037

  North Ayrshire

  2,380

  2,289

  South Ayrshire

  2,629

  2,425

  Central Scotland

  Clackmannanshire

  637

  625

  Falkirk

  2,735

  2,586

  569

  Number of appeals following the 1995 revaluation for non-domestic rates

  Valuation board

  Council

  Number of appeals1

  Number of properties2

  Stirling

  2,162

  2,021

  Dumfries and Galloway

  Dumfries and Galloway

  3,025

  2,923

  Dunbartonshire and Argyll and Bute

  Argyll and Bute

  3,057

  2,885

  East Dunbartonshire

  1,187

  1,107

  West Dunbartonshire

  1,415

  1,329

  Fife

  Fife

  6,244

  5,859

  Glasgow

  Glasgow city

  18,677

  16,084

  Grampian

  Aberdeen city

  5,498

  4,924

  Aberdeenshire

  3,302

  3,135

  Moray

  1,486

  1,436

  Highland and Western Isles

  Highland

  5,882

  5,500

  Western Isles

  318

  311

  Lanarkshire

  North Lanarkshire

  5,045

  4,501

  South Lanarkshire

  5,290

  4,629

  Lothian

  East Lothian

  1,005

  967

  Edinburgh

  9,150

  8,517

  Midlothian

  777

  743

  West Lothian

  2,392

  2,139

  Orkney and Shetland

  Orkney

  174

  167

  Shetland

  294

  286

  Renfrewshire

  East Renfrewshire

  1,071

  985

  Inverclyde

  1,713

  1,479

  Renfrewshire

  3,721

  3,285

  Scottish Borders

  Scottish Borders

  1,944

  1,892

  Number of dwellings by council tax band at 7 October 1996

  Authority

  Band A

  Band B

  Band C

  Band D

  Band E

  Band F

  Band G

  Band H

  Total

  Scotland

  606,313

  572,369

  342,732

  251,768

  248,421

  119,502

  80,757

  9,658

  2,231,520

  Aberdeen City

  21,788

  27,260

  16,657

  9,375

  11,612

  6,888

  6,183

  652

  100,415

  Aberdeenshire

  20,871

  15,272

  12,464

  13,690

  15,182

  8,626

  5,183

  375

  91,663

  Angus

  15,449

  12,025

  6,211

  6,733

  5,394

  1,643

  819

  136

  48,410

  Argyll and Bute

  7,881

  9,261

  9,093

  5,142

  6,291

  3,196

  2,120

  207

  43,191

  Clackmannanshire

  6,502

  6,734

  1,668

  1,954

  2,301

  801

  525

  35

  20,520

  Dumfries and Galloway

  11,476

  22,249

  9,971

  8,443

  8,359

  3,365

  1,603

  144

  65,610

  Dundee City

  35,504

  16,364

  6,188

  6,699

  4,734

  1,398

  674

  32

  71,593

  East Ayrshire

  27,361

  9,557

  3,551

  4,725

  4,038

  1,489

  349

  30

  51,100

  East Dunbartonshire

  1,318

  3,879

  7,880

  6,870

  10,468

  5,785

  5,190

  422

  41,812

  East Lothian

  1,184

  8,871

  13,198

  4,435

  4,336

  2,824

  2,352

  403

  37,603

  East Renfrewshire

  1,511

  5,073

  3,549

  5,713

  7,435

  5,452

  4,907

  542

  34,182

  Edinburgh city

  26,868

  44,262

  38,122

  27,679

  30,439

  18,867

  16,605

  2,946

  205,788

  Falkirk

  22,739

  18,523

  5,012

  6,129

  5,790

  2,109

  876

  37

  61,215

  Fife

  42,966

  47,364

  18,660

  15,276

  16,281

  6,936

  3,772

  340

  151,595

  Glasgow city

  94,457

  73,839

  55,677

  31,179

  19,189

  6,879

  4,240

  562

  286,022

  Highland

  19,749

  21,680

  18,367

  14,023

  12,954

  5,074

  2,423

  273

  94,543

  Inverclyde

  24,243

  4,332

  2,405

  2,382

  2,645

  1,387

  997

  156

  38,547

  Midlothian

  1,137

  11,641

  9,482

  3,530

  3,455

  1,437

  979

  140

  31,801

  Moray

  12,005

  9,863

  5,288

  4,741

  3,648

  1,113

  418

  103

  37,179

  North Ayrshire

  21,722

  17,913

  5,672

  5,307

  6,498

  2,068

  790

  42

  60,012

  North Lanarkshire

  56,680

  35,745

  14,573

  9,856

  9,126

  3,204

  1,033

  32

  130,249

  Orkney

  2,928

  2,506

  1,720

  1,229

  692

  136

  13

  2

  9,226

  Perth and Kinross

  9,290

  14,212

  9,879

  7,983

  9,241

  4,758

  3,241

  488

  59,092

  Renfrewshire

  17,590

  25,452

  11,300

  8,104

  8,268

  4,158

  2,425

  194

  77,491

  Scottish Borders

  16,164

  12,434

  5,765

  4,613

  4,669

  2,889

  2,211

  318

  49,063

  Shetland

  3,368

  1,726

  2,306

  1,275

  781

  135

  28

  2

  9,621

  South Ayrshire

  7,393

  12,255

  7,709

  6,976

  8,044

  3,917

  2,312

  210

  48,816

  South Lanarkshire

  37,779

  29,306

  21,362

  14,886

  12,087

  5,533

  3,211

  241

  124,405

  Stirling

  6,826

  8,101

  3,469

  3,072

  5,035

  3,911

  3,600

  479

  34,493

  West Dunbartonshire

  8,919

  17,689

  6,848

  3,706

  3,826

  1,011

  361

  25

  42,385

  West Lothian

  17,565

  23,387

  6,178

  4,834

  4,978

  2,404

  1,289

  83

  60,718

  Western Isles

  5,080

  3,594

  2,508

  1,209

  625

  109

  28

  7

  13,160

  All dwellings, including exempt dwellings but excluding free-standing lock-ups.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the amount of grant-aided expenditure to each local authority for 1996–97 to support the provision of council tax valuation for rating and electoral registration services. [9400]
  570

  Number of appeals following the 1995 revaluation for non-domestic rates

  Valuation board

  Council

  Number of appeals1

  Number of properties2

  Tayside

  Angus

  1,714

  1,665

  Dundee city

  3,791

  3,394

  Perth and Kinross

  2,477

  2,349

  All Scotland

  103,405

  94,474

  1 Appeals and complaints lodged with assessors departments in relation to the 1995 revaluation.

  2 The number of properties against which there are appeals. This is less than the number of appeals because there are, in some cases more than one appeal in relation to a property. For example, both the owner and the tenant of a property may appeal.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the number of households in each local authority area, by council tax bands, at 31 March. [9397]

  Mr. Kynoch
  Information is not available on the number of households by council tax band. The table shows the latest available information—for October 1996—on the number of dwellings on the valuation list in each local authority area by council tax band.

  Mr. Kynoch
  The valuation for council tax and electoral registration grant-aided expenditure assessments are each distributed in proportion to the number of dwellings valued for council tax. The relevant figures for each local authority for 1996–97 are shown in the table.
  571

  £000

  Valuation for council tax GAE

  Electrol registration GAE

  Aberdeen City

  394

  148

  Aberdeenshire

  359

  135

  Angus

  190

  71

  Argyll and Bute

  171

  64

  Scottish Borders

  193

  73

  Clackmannanshire

  81

  30

  West Dunbartonshire

  167

  63

  Dumfries and Galloway

  258

  97

  Dundee City

  284

  107

  East Ayrshire

  203

  76

  East Dunbartonshire

  166

  62

  East Lothian

  148

  56

  East Renfrewshire

  135

  51

  Edinburgh

  811

  305

  Falkirk

  241

  91

  Fife

  594

  224

  Glasgow

  1,139

  429

  Highland

  371

  140

  Inverclyde

  155

  58

  Midlothian

  125

  47

  Moray

  146

  55

  North Ayrshire

  236

  89

  North Lanarkshire

  512

  193

  Orkney

  36

  13

  Perthshire and Kinross

  232

  87

  Renfrewshire

  303

  114

  Shetland Islands

  38

  14

  South Ayrshire

  192

  72

  South Lanarkshire

  490

  184

  Stirling

  135

  51

  West Lothian

  236

  89

  Western Isles

  52

  20

  Prescribed Drugs (Adverse Effects)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people have(a) become crippled and (b) died from taking the steroid Prednisolone in Scotland in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement. [9639]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Information is not held centrally on the number of people crippled from taking the steroid Prednisolone in Scotland.

  There have been no deaths in Scotland in the last five years where the steroid Prednisolone has been mentioned on the death certificate.

  Regional Selective Assistance
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much in total his Department has failed to recover from companies defaulting on the terms of awards of regional selective assistance for each of the last 10 financial years; and if he will list the companies from which his Department has failed to recoup these moneys. [6481]

  Mr. Kynoch
  [holding answer 28 November 1996]The amounts of regional selective assistance grant written off each year since 1990–91, the earliest year for which records are available, are given in the table.572

  £ million

  Number of individual cases

  1990–91

  0.45

  21

  1991–92

  1.39

  16

  1992–93

  0.87

  21

  1993–94

  0.20

  6

  1994–95

  19.90

  28

  1995–96

  1.25

  13

  Payments of regional selective assistance to individual companies are generally regarded as commercially confidential as are any grant payments subsequently recovered or written off. It is, however, already public knowledge that in 1994–95 an amount of £17.6 million was written off in respect of the Health Care International case, and this amount is included in the total shown for that year.

  Companies (Financial Assistance)
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what types of financial assistance his Department provides to companies creating or safeguarding employment with proposed development within Scotland; and under what legislation these payments have been made. [6489]

  Mr. Kynoch
  [holding answer 28 November 1996]Grant assistance from the Scottish Office for these purposes is generally given under the powers of the Industrial Development Act 1982. The principal grant assistance scheme is regional selective assistance, for which the legislative authority is section 7 of that Act. Full details of assistance given under the Act are contained in the publication "Industrial Development Act 1982: Annual Report by the Secretaries for Trade and Industry, Scotland and Wales for the year ended 31 March 1996" London, HMSO, 1996.

  Agri-environmental Schemes
  Sir Jerry Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list for each of the agri-environmental schemes for which his Department is responsible, (i) actual expenditure in 1992–93, 199394, 1994–95 and 1995–96, (ii) provision and estimated outturn of expenditure in 1996–97 and (iii) planned expenditure in 1997–98, 1998–99 and 1999–2000, distinguishing in each case between(a) payments to farmers, (b) running costs and (c) monitoring costs. [8008]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  [holding answer 10 December 1996]The information is set out in the following table. Information on running costs is not collected separately and it is not possible at this stage to make forward projection of monitoring costs for other than environmentally sensitive areas. Overall planned provision is £9.235 million for 1997–98, £13.468 million for 1998–99 and £15.7 million for 1999–2000.
  573

  £000

  Actual

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  Provision

  Estimate

  Payments to farmers and crofters

  Environmentally sensitive areas

  1,086

  963

  1,044

  2,525

  5,000

  3,898

  Habitats1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  600

  152

  Heather moorland1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2,928

  99

  Countryside premium scheme

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Organic aid

  —

  —

  —

  53

  170

  100

  Set-aside access1

  —

  —

  —

  24

  240

  2

  Monitoring costs

  Environmentally sensitive areas

  91

  —

  238

  307

  310

  310

  1 These schemes will be closed to new applications from 1 January 1997 and will be superseded by the countryside premium scheme which is scheduled for introduction early in 1997.

  2 Includes cost of signs.

  Seat Belts
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will estimate how many(a) drivers, (b) front seat passengers and (c) back seat passengers have been (i) killed and (ii) injured as a result of not wearing a seat belt in a vehicle in Scotland in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement. [8227]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 11 December 1996]The table provides the recorded statistics on the number of drivers and passengers killed or injured in Scotland in cars or vans while not wearing a seat belt, whether or not one was fitted. Separate information between front and back seat casualties is only available for cars. Statistics for seat belt wearing are only available until 1993 and only for the occupants of cars and vans. The table does not include figures for casualties where the wearing of a belt was not reported—about 11 per cent. of all casualties.

  1991

  1992

  1993

  Killed

  Injured

  Killed

  Injured

  Killed

  Injured

  Car or van drivers

  23

  332

  27

  305

  26

  285

  Car or van passengers

  52

  1501

  28

  1,087

  24

  913

  Front seat car passengers

  15

  149

  13

  142

  8

  129

  Rear seat car passengers

  29

  1,242

  13

  874

  16

  733

  All van passengers

  8

  110

  2

  71

  —

  51

  Separate information on the number of casualties in Scotland saved by wearing seat belts is not available, but for Great Britain as a whole it is estimated that 510 lives and 8,800 serious injuries have been saved each year as a result of seat belts being worn.

  Student Grants
  Mr. Welsh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will estimate the cost of making student grants available at 1990 levels in 1996–97 prices in Scotland. [9080]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  [holding answer 12 December 1996]Expenditure on student awards in Scotland in financial year 1990–91 was £172.46 million.
  574
  The equivalent cost at 1996–97 prices, adjusted for the increased number of award holders, is estimated to be £333,657 million.

  Nursery Vouchers
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimate he has made of the administrative cost in each local authority area in Scotland of implementing the nursery voucher scheme in the first full year of its operation. [8969]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  [holding answer 16 December 1996]The operational evaluation of the pilot year voucher schemes which I have commissioned from a research team at Stirling university will look, amongst other things, at the impact on providers, including the four piloting authorities, of introducing the voucher system. This research will be published following submission of the research team's final report in early autumn 1997.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  BSE
  Mr. John Townend
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement about bovine spongiform encephalopathy. [10143]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  A further report on bovine spongiform encephalopathy was placed in the Library of the House today.

  The report gives an update on new virus Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease cases and explains the new measures taken on cattle identification and animal feed. Reference is made to the five point plan agreed in Florence for the resumption of exports and explains that all the preconditions, with the exception of the accelerated slaughter programme, have been complied with. It also details the sustained improvement in the handling of specified bovine material in slaughterhouses. The report also announces the occurrence of transmissible spongiform encephalopathy in a domestic cat born after the extension of the specified bovine ban in September 1990.
  575
  The number of clinically suspect cases of BSE reported in Great Britain has continued to fall, and at 31 October 1996 was 36.1 per cent. less than at the same time in 1995, and 63.3 per cent. less than the same time in 1994. A continued improvement is expected for the future.

  Renderers and Abattoirs (Prosecutions)
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list each prosecution initiated by his Department which has now been completed against(a) renderers, (b) abattoirs, (c) livestock dealers, (d) animal feed manufacturers and (e) pet food manufacturers in each year since 1990, with in each case the (i) name of the individual or organisation prosecuted, (ii) nature of the charges and (iii) outcome of the prosecution; and if he will make a statement. [3505]

  Mr. Boswell
  Available records do not reveal any prosecutions as having been instituted by the Department against(a) renderers, (d) animal feed manufacturers, or (e) pet food manufacturers during the years in question.

  The following prosecutions, initiated by the Department, have been completed in the relevant years.

  1990
  One prosecution of an abattoir under the pig carcase grading regulations. Convictions on three charges sustained on appeal. Conviction now spent.

  1991
  One prosecution of a livestock dealer for offences in relation to certification for export of squirrel monkeys. Conviction now spent.

  1992
  No relevant prosecutions.

  1993
  One prosecution of a livestock dealer by name of White for offences relating to movement of animal records. Fined a total of £2,500, ordered to pay £1,000 costs.

  1994
  One prosecution of an abattoir by name of Casemore for offences in relation to maximum residue limits in meat, and record keeping. Fined a total of £800, ordered to pay £400 costs.
  One prosecution of a mink keeper by name of Smith for keeping mink on unlicensed premises. Fined £5,000, ordered to pay £700 costs.

  1995
  One prosecution of a company called Towers Barron Ltd. for acting as a cutting premises without a licence. Fined a total of £2,750, ordered to pay £1,423 costs.
  One prosecution of an individual called White for three similar offences. Fined a total of £1,000, ordered to pay £1,340 costs.
  One prosecution of a livestock dealer called Shone for offences relating to export certification for horses. Fined £1,500, ordered to pay £4,000 costs.

  1996 (to date)
  One prosecution of an abattoir called Bakers for failure to stain, and failure to separate specified bovine offal. Fined a total of £3,000, ordered to pay £2,000 costs.
  One prosecution of an abattoir run by an individual called Kellow for similar offences. Fined £1,500, ordered to pay £1,050 costs.
  One prosecution of an abattoir called Stillmans (Somerset) Ltd. for similar offences. Fined a total of £7,500, ordered to pay £3,000 costs.
  One prosecution of an abattoir run by Blackpool Abattoir Co. Ltd. for failure to separate specified bovine material. Fined £3,000, ordered to pay £1,818 costs.
  576
  One prosecution of an individual called Townsend who worked in an abattoir premises for using vertebral bones in the production of mechanically recovered meat. Fined £600, ordered to pay £1,380 costs.
  One prosecution for unlicensed slaughtering against an individual called Newall. Fined £2,000, ordered to pay £1,500 costs.
  One prosecution of a slaughterman in an abattoir under welfare rules. Fined £250.
  One prosecution of a livestock dealer called Smith for record keeping offences. Fined a total of £3,800, ordered to pay £5,767 costs.
  One prosecution of an individual called Hart for unlicensed cutting. Fined a total of £900, ordered to pay £500 costs.

  To research these matters to provide more details of the prosecutions would entail excessive cost.

  Mammalian Meat and Bone Meal (Transport)
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what provisions other than the Food Safety (General Food Hygiene) Regulations 1995 provide for the decontamination of vehicles used to transport mammalian meat and bone meal from potentially BSE-infected cattle; and if he will make a statement. [7947]

  Mrs. Browning
  Regulation 14 of the Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy Order 1996 requires any vehicle used to transport mammalian meat and bone meal, or material containing mammalian meat and bone meal, to be thoroughly cleaned and disinfected as soon as possible after the transport ceases and in any event before the vehicle is used for any other purpose.

  Countryside Stewardship Scheme
  Sir Robert Hicks
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the number of applications(a) made during 1996 for the countryside stewardship scheme, (i) in total and (ii) for Devon and Cornwall; and if he will indicate the number (1) approved and (2) being processed; and (b) made in 1995 which have not yet been determined. [8693]

  Mr. Boswell
  Some 2,545 countryside stewardship applications were received during the 1996 application period; 1,336 have been identified for approval, of which 124 were in Devon and Cornwall. A total of 163 agreement offers have been issued, six in Devon and Cornwall, and the target is to issue all the remainder by the end of January.

  Of the applications received, 873 have been rejected, 42 of which are in Devon and Cornwall. The remainder are still being processed.

  Four 1995 applications in Devon and Cornwall passed to the Ministry by the Countryside Commission have not yet been determined. The equivalent figure for the scheme as a whole is not readily available.

  Sir Robert Hicks
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the average length of time his Department takes to process and approve applications for the countryside stewardship scheme; and if he will make a statement. [8694]

  Mr. Boswell
  The average length of time to process agreements in 1996 is likely to be about six months. This is no longer than had been expected, owing in part to
  577
  receipt of more applications than expected. It is the Ministry's intention to reduce the processing time for 1997.

  Organic Produce
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the scope for increasing the size of the United Kingdom market for organic produce. [9221]

  Mr. Boswell
  The size of the market for organic produce will be determined by consumer demand and industry efforts to promote the market. However, it is already evident that demand is strong and that much is being met by imports. The Government are doing a great deal to encourage farmers and growers to respond. As well as providing aid for conversion to organic production, we also provide free advisory services and fund the United Kingdom register of organic food standards and a substantial organic research and development programme.

  Legislation
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many items of legislation relating to his Department have been repealed since January 1994; how many statutory instruments were introduced during that same period; and how many of the latter were(a) deregulatory and (b) fee orders. [9345]

  Mr. Boswell
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster today.

  Fishing Permits
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress has been made concerning the scheme of fishing permits proposed for adoption after 2002. [9662]

  Mr. Baldry
  Council regulations 3760/92 and 1627/94 already provide the framework for Community licence and permit systems to enable member states to regulate fishing activities. These are the basis of the detailed measures in western waters introduced on 1 January 1996. The UK industry is therefore already familiar with these arrangements, which involves licences issued by UK fisheries Departments. The Government would reject any proposals to take away such national responsibilities and introduce a single EU fishing fleet managed and policed from Brussels.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Police Service (Female Appointments)
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many female chief constables there have been since 1966. [8859]

  Mr. Maclean
  The first female chief constable was appointed on 31 July 1995 to Lancashire Constabulary. A second female chief constable was recently appointed to Wiltshire Constabulary with effect from 1 April 1997.
  578
  Mr. Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to ensure that female police officers reach senior positions; and if he will make a statement. [8861]

  Mr. Maclean
  The police service, supported by the Government, actively pursues equal opportunities policies. Such policies directly affect the numbers of female police officers who are now able to reach the more senior ranks.

  Every force has an equal opportunities statement which includes sections on unfair discrimination, and which is supported by a grievance procedure.

  In addition, forces are committed to open selection and promotion systems and make regular use of the Equal Opportunities Commission codes of practice on selection and promotion.

  Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary has been a driving force behind many equal opportunities initiatives and maintains an oversight of equal opportunity issues within the police service. The inspectorate carries out regular inspections of forces and monitors the implementation of equal opportunities policies.

  Police forces are also subject, in common with other employers, to the requirements of the Race Relations Act 1976 and the Sex Discrimination Act 1975. These require forces not to discriminate on the basis of race, colour, ethnic or national origin or gender in the recruitment and promotion of staff.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many female(a) chief constables, (b) deputy chief constables, (c) assistant chief constables, (d) chief superintendents and (e) superintendents there are currently. [8860]

  Mr. Maclean
  At present there is one chief constable, although there will be two with effect from 1 April 1997. There are seven assistant chief constables and 41 superintendents, the ranks of deputy chief constables and chief superintendent having been abolished in 1995.

  Children and Crime Report
  Mr. Thurnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the recommendations of the recent Institute of Public Policy and Research report, "Children and Crime: Taking Responsibility". [8944]

  Mr. Maclean
  I cannot comment as I have not seen the report. If the hon. Member would like to send me a copy, I shall be happy to consider it.

  Physical and Sexual Abuse
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what research his Department has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated into (i) the effects of physical and sexual abuse and (ii) the correlation between such abuse and offending. [9301]

  Mr. Maclean
  The Home Department has not carried out any research which specifically examines these questions.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the number of
  579
  convicted offenders who have suffered physical or sexual abuse in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement. [9300]

  Mr. Maclean
  None. The information which would be required to make such estimates is not available centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Police Helmets
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the traditional police helmet will be replaced by a new design. [9217]

  Mr. Maclean
  This is an operational matter for chief officers of police.

  I understand that the Association of Chief Police Officers established a uniform project group in 1995 to research the national requirements for uniform and uniform-related equipment. Among the issues that the group is considering is the design of the traditional helmet, having regard for the need to afford police officers adequate protection.

  It is important to preserve the reassuring image and tradition which the existing helmet helps bring to officers on foot patrol. We are, therefore, working with ACPO to ensure that any redesign of the helmet fully takes into account this unique symbol of the British "bobby" and will seek to preserve the traditional style so far as it is compatible with affording officers the protection they deserve.

  Young Offenders
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many juveniles were(a) cautioned and (b) found guilty of indictable offences, in each of the last 17 years for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement. [9091]

  Mr. Maclean
  Information available centrally on the number of young offenders cautioned and found guilty for indictable offences is published annually in "Criminal Statistics England and Wales". Table 5.26 of the 1995 edition, table 5.23 of the 1989 edition and table 5.19 of the 1983 edition refer.

  Copies of the publications are available in the Library.

  Mr. Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of recorded offenders were juveniles in each of the last five years for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement. [9092]

  Mr. Maclean
  The information is given in the table.

  Persons aged 10 to 17 found guilty or cautioned for indictable offences as a proportion of all offenders by sex 1991–95

  England and Wales

  Percentages

  Sex

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  Males

  26

  25

  24

  24

  25

  Females

  32

  33

  31

  34

  34

  Persons

  27

  27

  25

  26

  26

  Sir Ivan Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of 580
  the joint statement on the sentencing of persistent young offenders recently issued by the Magistrates Association and Justices' Clerks Society. [9860]

  Mr. Maclean
  I very much welcome this excellent statement which encourages speedier sentencing of persistent young offenders.

  The statement suggests that, when dealing with those who have committed multiple or "spree" offences, it would be right for the court to sentence for the offences currently before it rather than wait for further alleged offences to come to trial. Such steps should help to reduce the number of adjournments that may be needed, speed up youth justice and ensure that these offenders are promptly and properly punished.

  I commend the Magistrates Association and Justices' Clerks Society for drawing up this guidance, which has been widely distributed within the criminal justice system.

  Offenders (Ages)
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the peak age of offending for men and women in(a) London and (b) England and Wales in (i) 1979, (ii) 1990 and (iii) the last year for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement. [9096]

  Mr. Maclean
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to him on 10 December 1996,Official Report, columns 134–35.

  Legislation
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many items of legislation relating to his Department have been repealed since January 1994; how many statutory instruments were introduced during the same period; and how many of the latter were(a) deregulatory and (b) fee orders. [9363]

  Mr. Howard
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster today.

  Police Officers (Private Hire)
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how much income from the hiring of police officers by private companies was raised by each regional police authority in England and Wales in each year since 1990; and if he will make a statement; [9503]

  (2) what guidelines he has issued to police authorities on the hiring of police officers by private companies; and if he will make a statement. [9502]

  Mr. Maclean
  Police Officers are not available for hire. Statistics on police income are published by the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy, but these do not distinguish income derived from private companies.

  Mentally 111 People (Prosecutions)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many mentally ill people receiving care
  581
  in the community have been (a) prosecuted and (b) found guilty of (i) non-violent and (ii) violent crimes in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement. [9610]

  Mr. Maclean
  The information is not collected.

  Bus Attacks (Gwent)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many attacks on(a) passengers and (b) staff have been (i) reported, (ii) resulted in prosecutions and (iii) resulted in convictions in each of the last five years broken down by (1) gender and (2) age bands of 10 years in each of the bus companies operating in the Gwent region; and if he will make a statement. [9609]

  Mr. Maclean
  The information is not collected.

  Vehicle Crime
  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to review the statute of limitations for juvenile offenders involved in car crime. [9426]

  Mr. Maclean
  The Government are committed to tackling juvenile crime and have made a number of legislative changes specifically aimed at strengthening the courts' powers for dealing with young offenders. However, we are not aware that the limitation causes problems in practice and there are no plans at present to undertake any such review.

  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the maximum sentence that can be passed on a 17-year-old convicted of reckless driving. [9428]

  Mr. Maclean
  The maximum sentence that can be passed on a 17-year-old convicted on indictment of dangerous driving is two years detention and/or a fine of up to £1,000. Disqualification from driving is obligatory on conviction for this offence.

  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the maximum time after which the prosecution can be brought for a vehicle crime. [9427]

  Mr. Maclean
  Under section 127 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980, proceedings for summary offences, which include offences such as taking a vehicle without consent, must be commenced within six months of the date when the alleged offence occurred.

  In the case of theft or aggravated vehicle-taking, where a vehicle is taken unlawfully without consent and there is dangerous driving, damage or injury to others before the vehicle is recovered, the offence can be tried either in a magistrates court or in the Crown court and no time limit applies.

  Justice and Home Affairs Council
  Sir Ivan Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the outcome of the Justice and Home Affairs Council held in Brussels on 28 and 29 November. [9859]

  Mr. Howard
  I represented the United Kingdom at the Council. The main matters dealt with were as follows:
  582
  The Council agreed as "A" points, among other things, a joint action creating a directory of competences in the fight against organised crime, and a joint action establishing a European Community funded incentive and exchange programme to combat trafficking in human beings and child sex abuse.

  The presidency reported progress in negotiations on the draft external frontiers convention, and on the Europol draft regulations. The United Kingdom hopes to ratify the Europol convention before the end of the year.

  Meetings were held with Ministers of associated central and eastern European countries and, separately, with Cyprus. These concentrated on the fight against drugs and the need to co-operate against trafficking in human beings and paedophile rings.

  Two reports were considered on the fight against organised crime, one dealing with the situation in 1995, the other looking forward to future possibilities for closer co-operation and assistance. The first report will be presented to the European Parliament in due course.

  A joint action was agreed concerning action to combat trafficking in human beings and sexual abuse of children.

  A draft report to the European Council on drugs in the European Union was discussed. Some amendments were agreed and the report will now be forwarded, via the General Affairs Council, to the European Council.

  There was extensive discussion of a draft joint action, proposed by France, on approximation of laws and practices to combat drug consumption and drug trafficking. While a strong will was shown on all sides to combat drug trafficking, final agreement of the text of the action was deferred pending further consultations by several countries.

  Agreement was reached on a draft resolution on sentencing for serious illicit drug trafficking. The text will now be submitted to the European Council.

  The presidency outlined proposals for settling the outstanding issue of European Court of Justice jurisdiction in the draft convention on corruption. More work was commissioned on these proposals.

  A report to the European Council on achievements in the field of justice and home affairs was briefly discussed. The text will now be finalised and forwarded to the European Council.

  A brief summary was given of activities in the field of crime prevention, including the outcome of recent seminars and proposals for a follow-up seminar next year.

  Priorities were outlined by the Netherlands for its presidency in the first half of 1997. These included implementation of the Europol convention, further work on action to combat drugs and organised crime, trafficking in human beings and abuse of the Internet, and development of the structured dialogue with the countries which are candidates for accession.

  Discussions took place on aspects of the draft convention on the service of documents in civil and judicial matters. In the absence of agreement, further work was commissioned.
  583
  Conventions were signed allowing Sweden, Austria and Finland to accede to two conventions on jurisdiction and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters and on the law applicable to contractual obligations. Protocols were signed providing on an optional basis for European Court of Justice jurisdiction in the European Union conventions on the protection of the European Communities financial interests and on the use of information technology for customs purposes.

  Closed Circuit Television Challenge
  Sir Ivan Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many bids have been received in the latest CCTV challenge competition; and if he will make a statement. [9861]

  Mr. Maclean
  The deadline for bids under round 3 of the closed circuit television challenge competition was 20 November. A total of £15 million is available to crime prevention partnerships in 1997–98 to support CCTV schemes and 371 bids have been received; the value of the bids is £26.8 million. The bids are now subject to detailed assessment. We shall be announcing the results of the competition early next year.

  "New Labour's Public Expenditure Plans"
  Mr. Derek Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what costs quoted in the document "New Labour's Public Expenditure Plans" were prepared in his Department; what detailed assumptions and interpretations were provided to officials in his Department to enable preparation of each cost; and what was the total cost to public funds of preparing each estimate. [6354]

  Mr. Howard
  The Home Office, in conjunction with Treasury, prepared factual material relating to costings published in "New Labour's Public Expenditure Plans" numbered 25, 26 and 89. The detailed assumptions and interpretations that were provided to officials are set out in my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary's reply to the hon. Member today. It is not normal working practice to keep a record of the time spent in providing factual information to Ministers and it is not therefore possible to offer a reliable estimate of the costs involved.

  Stolen Guns and Vehicles (Deaths and Injuries)
  Mr. David Young
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people have been(a) killed and (b) injured by (i) stolen pistols and (ii) stolen motor vehicles in each of the last five years. [8945]

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 13 December 1996]Information as to whether firearms used in offences have been stolen has not, in the past, been routinely collected centrally in England and Wales. However, a special exercise has recently been conducted to find out whether the guns used in homicide were licensed or not and, if not, whether they were stolen.

  This covered the years 1992 to 1994, and out of a total of 55 homicides involving the use of a handgun where it was known that the weapon was illegally held, one was reported to have been stolen.
  584
  No information is held centrally to show whether motor vehicles involved in killing or injuring people were stolen.

  Child Abuse
  Sir Sydney Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the adequacy of the operation of the law in relation to the prosecution of child abuse cases. [7629]

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 16 December 1996]The Government commissioned several independent research projects to look into the effectiveness of measures introduced by the Criminal Justice Acts of 1988 and 1991 to improve the handling of cases involving child witnesses. These examined the use of live television links for giving evidence and the use of video-recorded interviews for giving evidence-in-chief, and the speed of prosecutions for cases involving child witnesses. Further research has been commissioned to evaluate the effectiveness of training given to those involved in child abuse investigations and into the admissibility and sufficiency of evidence gathered during those investigations, the results of which will be available at the end of 1997.

  The findings from the completed research have shown that the legislation, and other supporting measures introduced by the Government have improved the management of child abuse cases. The Government will continue to make further changes where we consider, in the light of research and other information, they will bring further improvements.

  Police (Contracted-out Services)
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what studies he has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated into the effects of contracting out services supplied by civilian personnel of police forces, with particular reference to (i) the morale of those currently employed, (ii) the security of information, (iii) unpredictable surges of work due to emergencies, (iv) discipline, (v) collective levels of skills and experience and (vi) the quality of communication with the forces concerned. [8810]

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 16 December 1996]These are operational matters for chief officers. As police authority for the Metropolitan police, I am aware that there has been a recent review of support services for the force and the Commissioner has advised me of the recommendations made and the decisions reached.

  Police (Civil Staff)
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement concerning recent changes to the employment conditions, terms and contracts of Metropolitan police civil staff support services; what consultation took place on those changes; how many staff are affected; what is the cost of implementing the changes with particular reference to(a) consultancy fees, (b) redundancies and (c) early retirement plans; when the changes will be fully implemented. [8882]

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 16 December 1996]I understand from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis that there has been no recent change to the
  585
  employment contracts of Metropolitan police civil staff. A review has been conducted of headquarters support services covering 5,000 staff. Following a two-month consultation period, proposals for a range of efficiency savings, including contracting-out services covering some 2,000 posts, have been approved by the Metropolitan police policy board. Contracts are expected to be let by mid 1998. Detailed implementation costs are not yet available.

  Charity Collections
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many (i) prosecutions and (ii) convictions there have been, in each of the last three years for which figures are available, for breaches of licensing rules on street and house-to-house charity collections in(a) the Metropolitan police district, (b) the City of London police district, (c) for each other area in the United Kingdom and (d) in total; and if he will make a statement. [8884]

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 16 December 1996]Information collected centrally does not identify individual offences committed under the Police Factories etc. (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1916 and the House to House Collections Act 1939 from other summary offences.

  Mr. Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to require each police station in the Metropolitan police district to be supplied with a regular list of street collection licences in that area; and if he will make a statement. [8886]

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 16 December 1996]I understand from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis that police stations within the Metropolitan police district are routinely informed of all authorised charitable street collections in their area.

  Charity Fraud
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will provide a statistical breakdown of prosecutions and convictions for charity fraud offences in each of the last three years for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement. [8885]

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 16 December 1996]The information is not available centrally.

  Immigration Detainees
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people are currently detained for immigration purposes; what is the longest period of detention; how many people detained for immigration purposes have, over each of the last three years, obtained bail; what procedures exist under which a person detained for immigration purposes may apply for bail; and if he will make a statement [9176]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  [holding answer 16 December 1996]The latest information relates to 31 October 1996 when 1,033 persons were detained solely under Immigration Act powers in Prison Service establishments or Immigration Service detention centres. The longest period of detention at that time was 75 months and related to a586
  person since released whose case was awaiting a decision from the European Court of Human Rights. Statistics on detainees who obtained bail are not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. With certain limited exceptions, anyone who is detained can apply for bail. An application can be made to a chief immigration officer, a police inspector or an immigration adjudicator.

WALES

  "New Labour's Public Expenditure Plans"
  Mr. Derek Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what costs quoted in the document, "New Labour's Public Expenditure Plans", were prepared in his Department; what detailed assumptions and interpretations were provided to officials in his Department to enable preparation of each cost; and what was the total cost to public funds of preparing each estimate. [6347]

  Mr. Hague
  The estimate of the cost of establishing the Welsh Assembly published in "New Labour's Public Expenditure Plans" was made by me. It is not the normal practice to keep a record of the time spent in providing factual information to Ministers and it is not therefore possible to offer a reliable estimate of the costs involved.

  Energy Advisers
  Mr. Alan W. Willians
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what progress has been made in meeting the commitment laid down in the energy plan for Wales published in 1989 of establishing a network of energy advisers over the Principality. [8696]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  The Welsh Office's Energy and Environment Office has a network of five energy advisers across Wales who provide free, impartial advice during site visits. The advisers are continually trained and developed to provide businesses and other organisations with effective advice on the efficient use of energy.

  Prescribed Drugs (Adverse Effects)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many people(a) were prescribed and (b) took the steroid Prednisolone in Wales in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement. [9643]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Information collected centrally relates to the number of prescription items dispensed. Available information shows that there were 610,750 prescriptions, excluding drugs used in hospitals, dispensed for Prednisolone between June 1994 and July 1996. This does not, however, indicate the number of people being prescribed or taking the drug as one person can have more than one prescription dispensed during the period in question.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many people have(a) become crippled and (b) died from taking the steroid Prednisolone in Wales in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement. [9642]
  587
  Mr. Jones
  Information on the number of people crippled by taking Prednisolone is not available centrally. There were no deaths, as a result of taking Prednisolone, recorded in Wales between 1993 and 1995—the only years for which these data are readily available.

  Medical Procedures (Complications)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will estimate(a) how many people and (b) the percentage of people who have been admitted to hospital as a direct result of complications after (i) surgery and (ii) medicinal treatment in Wales in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement. [9644]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  Due to the complexity of the data analysis required, I will write to the hon. Member and place a copy of my reply in the Library of the House.

  St. David's Medical Centre, Cardiff
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what official engagement the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones) had with Mr. Dusan Bako and Dr. Angelina Bako and others at the St. David's Medical Centre, Pentwyn drive, Pentwyn, Cardiff on Monday 9 December. [9505]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  None.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales on what date his Department(a) set and (b) informed the parties of the date of the oral hearing into the inclusion of Triocare in the list at the St. David's Medical Centre, Pentwyn drive, Pentwyn, Cardiff under the NHS Pharmaceutical Regulations 1992. [9504]

  Mr. Hague
  My officials are presently in the process of setting the date of the oral hearing and informing all parties.

  Objective 2 Status
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what recent consultations he has had with the member of 588
  the European Commission responsible for regional affairs concerning objective 2 status for industrial south Wales. [9506]

  Mr. Hague
  My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North met the European Commissioner responsible for Regional Affairs on 6 December when they discussed the successor objective 2 single programming document for industrial south Wales.

  Public Expenditure Statement Leak
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the outcome of the inquiry that he has set up into the leaking to the press on Tuesday 10 December of the contents of his statement on the 1997–98 Welsh Office budget. [9507]

  Mr. Hague
  I refer the hon. Member to the statement that I made to the House on Thursday 12 December,Official Report, column 412. I will keep him informed about the progress of the inquiry and will let him know the outcome when the investigation is complete.

  Legislation
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many items of legislation relating to his Department have been repealed since January 1994; how many statutory instruments were introduced during the same period; and how many of the latter were(a) deregulatory and (b) fee orders. [9372]

  Mr. Hague
  I refer the hon. Lady to the answer given today by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.

  New Health Authorities
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his 1996 departmental report, Cm 3215, page 79, if he will make a statement on progress in achieving the savings of £8 million arising from the setting up of the five new health authorities. [9508]

  Mr. Hague
  The savings targets of the five unified health authorities, established on 1 April this year, are linked to full implementation of all related charges and I expect to see savings achieved in 1998–99. Progress towards the targets will be monitored through the health authority annual accounts.

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

Ex-servicemen and women: Employment
Lord Molloy Lord Molloy asked Her Majesty's Government:
What measures exist to help ex-servicemen and ex-servicewomen to obtain gainful employment on leaving the services.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Earl Howe): My Lords, Her Majesty's Government recognize the invaluable contribution which service leavers can make to civilian life. Appropriate resettlement advice is available to all throughout their service. A programme of career and specialist briefings, training courses and elements of outplacement is also provided for eligible personnel. Training may be through in-house centres or by external providers. The Services Employment Network works with the Officers' Association and Regular Forces Employment Association to provide a free job-matching service for personnel and employers alike.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for that most encouraging reply. Is he aware that the Royal British Legion is now providing facilities at Tidworth Training College? Will the Government consider giving all the help that they can to the Royal British Legion in its further endeavour to assist ex-servicemen and women?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I am well aware of the excellent facilities provided by the Royal British Legion's joint services training and resettlement centre at Tidworth. Our own resettlement organisation in the MoD enjoys a close relationship with the Tidworth centre. As the noble Lord will know, eligible personnel can claim a grant for training courses. But we believe that the individual should be free to choose whether to train at an in-house centre or with an external provider such as the Royal British Legion. However, I shall take full note of the point raised by the noble Lord in the knowledge that he is the Royal British Legion's national vice-president.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the expertise of highly experienced junior ranks in the services in one field or another is not compatible with, and not acceptable in, the civilian counterpart as regards NVQs? Can the Minister seek to make the NVQs and work in the Army more compatible?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for the point that he raises. In fact in all three services an increasing emphasis is being placed on NVQs and on
1388
accreditation of service training and experience. Much of the formal training within the services develops skills which are directly transferable to civilian employment. These are relatively early days but I believe that we should see an increasing proportion of service leavers with NVQs to their credit over the years ahead.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, in view of the effort involved, will the Minister tell us what percentage of ex-servicemen are in full-time employment within six months of leaving the service?
Earl Howe: My Lords, the figure that I have relates to those who have left the services within a period of three months. A post-exit survey conducted a few months ago indicates that around 80 per cent. of service leavers are employed or otherwise engaged in their chosen activity within three months of leaving the services.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the Minister will be aware that certain ex-servicemen and women who served in the Gulf have not been able to retain employment. Indeed, there is some evidence that those who served in the Gulf have lost their jobs as a result of service. Is the noble Earl further aware that the noble Countess, Lady Mar, this morning issued a press release on the problems of Gulf War veterans and that I shall be putting down a Question for Written Answer to ensure that the Government give a considered response to that press release? Will the noble Earl tell the House how many of those who served in the Gulf and have now left the services are in gainful employment or have been sacked as a result of the Gulf War syndrome?
Earl Howe: My Lords, whenever a Question is tabled I always give a considered response. That will be the case with the noble Lord's Question or any that the noble Countess, Lady Mar, cares to table. I do not have the figures relating specifically to Gulf War veterans. If they are available, I shall write to the noble Lord.
Earl Jellicoe: My Lords, will my noble friend enlighten me as to the meaning of the three initials about which the noble Lord was inquiring?
Earl Howe: My Lords, they stand for national vocational qualifications.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, the House will be very glad to hear that the Government are providing some training and retraining facilities for servicemen who are about to leave the forces. However, the House will be absolutely appalled to learn that there is a 20 per cent. level of unemployment three months after leaving the services. Bearing in mind that the Government have presided over twice the rate of unemployment that pertained during the 1970s throughout virtually their whole period of office, when will they change course and realise that full employment is a sensible object of government policy?
Earl Howe: My Lords, the noble Lord does not paint a very accurate picture. What the services offer in terms of advice, resettlement training, civilian work experience and job finding bears very favourable comparison with anything of the kind that is available in the commercial sector. They have done that for years. The services pride themselves on being good employers. They take resettlement extremely seriously. As I am sure the noble Lord will know, for that reason they are never complacent. They are always seeking ways to improve the package and introduce up-to-date best practice.
Baroness Young: My Lords, will my noble friend the Minister confirm that, as NVQs become increasingly important qualifications for all young people, he will make sure that they are compatible with the qualifications that servicemen may collect in the course of their service lives?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I give my noble friend that undertaking. There is an increasing emphasis in all the services on NVQs. As a qualification they provide an understandable skill level that is easily transferable to civilian employment. Throughout their service all personnel acquire a variety of personal skills: leadership, adaptability, self-motivation and so on. Those stand them in very good stead in the civilian job market.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, since it is likely that service personnel have not been able to get a foot on the property ladder, is any particular help given to ex-servicemen with finding accommodation, either to rent or to buy?
Earl Howe: My Lords, when those personnel who occupy a married quarter leave the service, they are normally given discretion, should they ask for it, to stay on for a period. The services go to some trouble to liaise with the local housing association or local authority as the case may be to ensure that housing can be provided if it is required.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, is it not a strange commentary that only a few years ago, despite the urgings on the Minister from all parts of the House, the Government insisted on making redundant so many first-class servicemen? Fewer servicemen would be unemployed today if the Government had followed the advice of this House.
Earl Howe: My Lords, as I indicated, a very high proportion of service leavers gain employment within a relatively short space of time. I do not believe that any side of this House disagreed with the principle that the services needed to be reduced in size following the end of the Cold War. The downsizing has been managed extremely successfully. Although inevitably there has been some pain along the way for those made redundant, it has been well managed and jobs have been found for the majority of those who left.

Police Inquiries: Use of Personal Information
2.47 p.m.
Lord Cornwallis Lord Cornwallis asked Her Majesty's Government:
To what use may the police service put personal information collected in the course of inquiries into offences committed by third parties.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, the use of any information gathered by the police in the course of an investigation is a matter for the chief officer of the police force concerned, subject to the provisions of the Data Protection Act and any order of the court.
Lord Cornwallis: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Is she aware that I was recently visited by a police officer in the very laudable undertaking of checking on a firearms certificate and ascertaining that the firearms that it covered were in place and secured. Having ascertained that that was the case, he sat down at a table and asked me to fill in a form without which he said he could not get confirmation from the police computer that he had in fact made a visit to me. As somebody who served for 28 years in the special constabulary, I did not give the officer concerned a hard time. The form requested all my personal information: height, hair colour, eyes, any tattoos that I might have had, right down to the colour, make and registration numbers of my vehicles. Will the Minister tell the House who keeps that information and to what purpose it is put?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, first, I understand the concern lying behind the noble Lord's Question. He described what is called HOLMES—or the Home Office Large Major Enquiry System—a system used by the police but only employed in pursuit of very serious crime. As he knows, the crime being investigated at that time was murder and the weapon used in the murder was a .38 revolver. Anyone owning a revolver of that calibre in the area was visited, as was the noble Lord. The information involved, as I understand it, was checking on the licence and security of guns. I know from what the noble Lord said that that was all in order, but the officer then went on to personal details, which is part of HOLMES.
In response to the question of what it is used for, the police can do a number of things. Having gone back to the force with the information, they can either deem it so irrelevant as not to be even remotely material to the case, whereupon it can be destroyed. It can be inserted on the computer because at some point it may become relevant. Alternatively, it may go on the schedule of non-relevant information which goes to the prosecution and is made available to the defence in the pursuit of the trial.
The system is for the pursuit of serious crimes and the information may well by now have been deemed wholly irrelevant or it may be on the computer, where it will lie as non-relevant information for the purposes of that case.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether it is right that, the information having been found non-relevant on that schedule, it will be destroyed at the end of the trial? In such a situation with personal information which I gather was improperly obtained, has not the Home Secretary a discretion to order its destruction now?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, whether or not the information is relevant must be a matter for the police. They are the people with operational responsibility for pursuing serious crime. My noble friend asked whether it would be destroyed. Yes, it would be at some point. That may not be until the trial is at an end and the appeal system is exhausted, but at some point it will be destroyed, consistent with the policy of the force.
In passing, my noble friend Lord Campbell said that the information had been "improperly obtained". I think that the noble Lord, Lord Cornwallis, would say that it was a proper investigation in the first place to check the licence and the security of the guns. What he objected to was that the detailed personal description of himself was systematically recorded and might then go on the computer. The noble Lord is concerned as to what will happen to the information and for what purpose it will be used. There is strict control of access to the computer and the purpose for which the information will be used is only in pursuit of particularly serious crime.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, is it not the case that in addition to the Data Protection Act, to which the Minister referred in her original Answer, there are also extensive controls on the retention of such information in Part IX of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act? Does not the fact that there are such controls point up the need for comparable controls over the retention of material obtained through intrusive surveillance under the Police Bill currently before the House?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, that was a nice try! I shall not be drawn on intrusive surveillance because the noble Lord knows that we shall discuss the question in some detail at the next stage of the Police Bill. He is absolutely right to say that data protection is a good safeguard in the system. Not only does the noble Lord, Lord Cornwallis, have subject access to the material kept on the computer about him but there are strict limitations on the use to which the police can put that information. I believe that that is an important safeguard.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, is the Minister aware that many of us find it puzzling that anyone should take exception to such inquiries by the police in the course of a murder investigation?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I cannot account for the attitude that people take. The noble Lord, Lord Cornwallis, knows the police and their methods very well. He is merely concerned about this particular investigation.
1392
Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, that in crimes such as serial killings, inconsequential and seemingly inoffensive or extremely trivial information gathered on to the computer with a facility for searching and matching information can result in interception more quickly. That may help to save lives. That is the rationale for the activity.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, is it not true that successive governments have destroyed the bobby on the beat and the local information available? Therefore, the more information about respectable citizens the police have, the more chance they have of catching the bad citizens.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, information and intelligence are a key part of what the police are about. I take exception to what the noble Lord said about destroying the bobby on the beat, there are many more bobbies on the beat. The marvellous service given to the Specials by the noble Lord, Lord Cornwallis, is responsible for putting many pairs of feet on the beat in the local communities, towns and villages in this country. They are important links in the chain for providing information to uncover crime.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, is there not a wider point about information reaching police stations? Is the noble Baroness aware that the possibility of that information getting to the local press is sometimes a deterrent to the full reporting of crimes, particularly theft?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Lord raises an important point. It can be worrying. Information gratuitously given to the press is wrong and the police are as subject to the force of law as any other citizen. If information is gathered and improperly used, it is subject to the Data Protection Act, as I have said it is, so passing it gratuitously to the press would be in breach of the law.
Lord Cornwallis: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that the form concerned has no statutory authority and that the officer concerned should have advised me that I had no need to complete it?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I agree with that. It is part of the normal investigation of the police and HOLMES is one of the methods that they use. However, I believe that the noble Lord should have been told by the policeman not only why he required the information but also that he did not have to complete the form and that he was not compelled to give the information.

Church of Scientology
2.56 p.m.
Baroness Sharpies Baroness Sharpies asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have any objections to the way in which the Church of Scientology conducts its operations in this country.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the Church of Scientology may follow its own doctrines and practices provided that it remains within the law. But the Government recognise that serious allegations have been made about some of its activities.
Baroness Sharpies: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. Is she aware that entrants to the church have to undergo a so-called "purification" process? Is it under qualified medical supervision? Is my noble friend further aware that a number of those who have left the cult have been both threatened and harassed and many have been made bankrupt by the church?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am not in a position to help my noble friend or to comment on the detailed practices of the Church of Scientology. It is something which she may care to raise with the scientologists themselves because it must be for them to respond. Any evidence of the unethical or unlawful practice of medicine would be a matter of serious concern and could be in breach of the law. Therefore, it would require action.
As to my noble friend's second point, I know that serious allegations have been made and it is right that people should be warned of the potential dangers of becoming involved in organisations of that kind. Any evidence of harassment or threats which could amount to criminal activity should be reported to the police.
Lord McNair: My Lords, in asking this question I have to tell the House that I have an interest in it. I am a member of the Church of Scientology. If the noble Baroness has any problems or questions about scientology, I should be happy for her to come and ask me.
Will the Minister accept that I am pleased that the Government's policy remains as laid down by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, at the CESNUR Conference in 1993? Does she also agree that those who fail to meet and talk to members of such organisations are liable to form a biased or incomplete picture of the organisation?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I know how seriously the noble Lord feels on the issue. But if someone comes to me as a Minister, or to anyone else, and makes allegations and we simply refer the matter to a member of the Church of Scientology, or any other cult, it is unlikely that they will say: "Yes, of course we harass people and extort money from them", or whatever it is. Their natural reaction will simply be denial. I am not in a position to answer for that. But it seems to me to be important to persuade people so far as possible to produce evidence so that it can be properly responded to by the scientology movement. In the meantime, I can say that sometimes it is fear that prevents people from doing that and sometimes it is sheer distress, not only on the part of the individual but on the part of the individual's family.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Minister used the word "cult". The Church of Scientology calls itself a church. Is there a definition of the words "church" and "cult"? If so, does the Church of Scientology meet either of those definitions?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, my understanding is that the Church of Scientology chapels do not conform to the legal definition of a church and certainly not a religion. I believe it was in 1969 that the scientologists appealed before the courts and were not regarded as a religion.
Baroness Sharples: My Lords, can my noble friend tell me the status of the Americans working at the Church of Scientology headquarters? Can she say whether the church has applied for charitable status?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am sorry but I cannot help my noble friend about the status of the Americans. Coming to this country to work, they would of course need a work permit. They could not simply arrive and work in the scientology movement. In answer to the second question, my understanding is that the scientologists presented informally a hypothetical case to the Charity Commission; namely, should they apply for charitable status, would it be granted? The Charity Commission—it is a matter for the Charity Commission—investigated the matter thoroughly, came back to the scientologists and said that on the basis of the information provided to it it would not have granted charitable status. I also understand that the scientologists have now submitted a formal application to the Charity Commission. It must be for the Charity Commission to consider that application afresh.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, is the Minister aware that when the application was made to the Charity Commission it ruled that, in order to qualify as a religion, an organisation had to be theistic in character but that Buddhists, having existed for 2,500 years, were an exception to that principle? Does she feel that it would be appropriate for Parliament to frame a sensible definition of "religion" and "church", instead of leaving the matter to be determined by the Charity Commission and the courts?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, wiser counsels than I have tried that one. We have set our face against a definition of religion. We have settled for there being no legal definition of religion. I have now found the date in my brief: it was 1969 when the scientologists appealed to be considered a religion and it was decided at that time that their chapels did not constitute a church and were not a religion.

Architects Bill [H.L.]
3.2 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to consolidate the enactments relating to architects. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Vehicles (Price Indication) Bill [H.L.]
The Earl of Bradford: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to make provision concerning price indications of vehicles. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(The Earl of Bradford.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Overseas Domestic Workers (Protection) Bill [H.L.]
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to amend the Immigration Act 1971, to confer protection on overseas domestic workers who are witnesses or plaintiffs in proceedings before a court or tribunal. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Lord Hylton.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Business of the House: Debates this Day
The Lord Privy Seal (Viscount Cranborne): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That Standing Order 38(4) (Arrangement of the Order Paper) be dispensed with this day to allow the Motion standing in the name of the Earl Russell to be taken before the Motion to approve the Child Support (Miscellaneous Amendments) (No. 2) Regulations 1996.—(Viscount Cranborne.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Consolidated Fund Bill
The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish.)
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, does the prohibition on debating what is one of the most important Bills of the Session still continue or has the Procedure Committee at long last taken another look at it and decided to amend the provision?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am not sure whether this is the most important Bill of the Session. I think that some of my other Bills are more important Bills of the Session, but I shall leave that point to one side. In fact, the Procedure Committee has looked at this matter. I am sure that
1396
my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter knows that in the Companion on page 148 the guidance endorsed by the Procedure Committee is that:
"It is now a convention that proceedings upon [Consolidated Fund Bills] are taken formally".
On Question, Bill read a second time; Committee negatived. Then, Standing Order No. 44 having been dispensed with (pursuant to Resolution of 12th December), Bill read a third time, and passed.

National Health Service (Primary Care) Bill [H.L.]
3.5 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cumberlege): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Cumberlege.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Baroness Jay of Paddington Baroness Jay of Paddington moved Amendment No. 1:
Before Clause 1, insert the following new clause—
PILOT SCHEMES: EXCLUDED BODIES
(".—(1) Nothing in this Act shall permit the Secretary of State to approve any proposal for a pilot scheme submitted to him by an authority if that proposal includes the provision of personal medical services by—

(a) a company as defined in section 735 of the Companies Act 1985, or

(b) a body corporate incorporated outside Great Britain, which has paid, or has the power to pay, a dividend to its shareholders or which is part of a group of companies, any of which has paid, or has the power to pay, a dividend to its shareholders.

(2) In this section, "provision" includes the employment of persons providing personal medical services or any other contractual arrangement with such a person, including sponsorship and other forms of assistance in money or in kind.").
The noble Baroness said: The purpose of this amendment is simple. It is to prevent the family doctor service in this country being taken over by private commercial interests. General practitioners have always been the cornerstone of our publicly funded National Health Service. For 50 years they and the community nurses, health visitors and other professionals who work with them have provided the excellent primary care on which all our families rely. Although there have been recent concerns about the development of a two-tier system in the new NHS internal market, the local surgery has continued to be the place to which people turn for skilled, objective advice, health service prescriptions, referrals to hospitals and most of the medical care that we need from the cradle to the grave.
The Bill before us contains opportunities to develop those services and make them more flexible. But it also contains a major threat. Deregulation can lead to privatisation. This Bill is an enabling Bill. The first

1397
part—the first 16 clauses—allows a variety of pilot schemes to change the delivery of primary care at the local level. There are very few specifications about the nature of those pilots on the face of the Bill.
New Clause 1 is designed to ensure that commercial companies who pay dividends to their shareholders are explicitly excluded from promoting those pilot schemes. They cannot become even indirectly the providers of personal medical services within the National Health Service. At Second Reading the Minister explained that GPs, dentists and NHS trusts, provided that they prepared the proposals correctly, could automatically submit pilot schemes for approval to the Secretary of State. But the noble Baroness also said that proposals from other bodies would be considered.
In the Second Reading debate the Minister dismissed as "chatter" the concern that the "other bodies" might be commercial companies and that supermarkets, for example, might get involved in providing or sponsoring medical services. That, the noble Baroness said,
"is no doubt a good story, but it is time to bring speculation down to earth".—[Official Report, 3/12/96; co1.592.]
But, as I am sure many Members of the Committee have seen reported since the Second Reading debate, the "chatter" has been openly confirmed by company spokesmen. For example, the supermarket chain ASDA, which is one of the largest of our successful grocery retailers, has said that it is considering introducing doctors' services on contract to the NHS in some of its stores if the Bill before us becomes law unamended.
Boots, with its countrywide network of chemist shops, is also interested, while Unichem, one of the largest pharmaceutical wholesalers, which runs more than 400 chemist shops, states that it will be pursuing its proposals immediately if the Bill before the Committee becomes law. I hope therefore that the Committee will realise that by introducing Amendment No. 1—new Clause 1—we on these Benches are not dealing in the realm of fanciful speculation or scaremongering but in the possibilities of practical reality.
There seem to be three essential reasons for supporting the new clause which, as I say, excludes commercial companies from the pilot schemes. The first is obvious: the commercial companies provide a threat, under the arrangements that might be proposed, to the basic principles of a publicly-funded NHS and to its public service values. The British Medical Association has already spoken of its grave concern that the proposal suggested specifically by Unichem will bring the privatisation of personal medical services nearer.
We are also concerned, as indeed is the British Medical Association, with the provisions for the sale of goodwill which appear in the Bill and which could lead to the sale of goodwill within general practice to commercial interests. That is the subject of subsequent amendments which we shall be discussing later today.
I am pleased that the General Practitioner magazine conducted a rapid survey of its readership about the possible proposals in the past two weeks. It found that 71 per cent. of general practitioners surveyed were against commercial companies being involved in
1398
sponsoring their services. Perhaps there will not be any takers therefore; but that does not obviate the necessity to try to prevent the possibility being put on the face of the Bill.
The second fundamental reason for supporting new Clause 1 is that, from the individual patient's point of view, the essential nature of a trusting relationship between a patient and his or her GP is a relationship based on the understanding that everyone is acting from no personal self-interest. That must surely be open to question if the doctor is an employee of a dominant commercial organisation. For example, it may be convenient to me as a shopper and a patient to visit my GP in an annexe of Asda. But I would be doubtful of his or her objectivity if I found his pharmaceutical products offered at discounts by the sponsoring Unichem chain and my healthy eating encouraged by special deals from the resident supermarket. The doctor's role as an independent advocate must be undermined if he is inextricably linked to a commercial company whose interest in that association is clearly to increase its profits.
A speaker at the conference of the Institute of Health Service Management in November put it bluntly. He was talking about similar proposals being made for employing people within individual trust hospitals, not in primary but in secondary care. He said,
"You could be the chief executive officer of a trust hospital but employed by Tarmac. These people will still be health service managers in the public sector but they will be working for a private sector company with a different bottom line".
It is precisely that question of the "different bottom line" that concerns us and caused us to table Amendment No. 1.
My third basic reason for asking the Committee to support the new clause is the issue of equity. The National Health Service is intended to provide equity in healthcare. The Government told us at Second Reading and in background briefings that the purpose of the Bill was to extend and improve primary care services. Those improvements are most needed, as we all know, in deprived communities whether they are inner cities or remote rural areas. It is unlikely that commercial companies will wish to be involved in extending services in those areas, precisely because they are not likely to improve their own profits there. Realistically, we are far more likely to see commercial general practice in a prosperous suburban supermarket than in an inner city corner shop.
We already have great inequities in our healthcare provision, and commercial schemes will exacerbate them. I hope that the Government will accept new Clause 1. It specifically excludes the possibility of those potential developments which are a threat to the essential character of NHS primary care. It is a threat which the Government have previously denied and described as fanciful speculation. If that is so, there is certainly no cause to oppose the amendment. If the Minister responds today that these concerns can be met by regulation rather than by primary statute, that may be sufficient, provided Parliament is given an early opportunity to consider any regulations.
The Secretary of State for Health has spoken, in the context of this Bill, about enabling a thousand different blooms of different primary care to flourish. But a potential bloom of commercial privatised primary care must be doused with weed-killer at this early opportunity before it spreads. I beg to move.
3.15 p.m.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: We on these Benches very much support the amendment. I consider it to be, in many ways, one of the most important amendments before us today. There are many good things in this new primary care Bill but without Amendment No. 1 the dangers of which the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, spoke are very great.
At Second Reading the Minister stated that she had not seen or heard of any specific interest by supermarkets in the possibility of setting up a health centre on their premises. We now know without doubt that they are interested. If we take that, together with the fact that they could employ salaried doctors only and not bring in a health service practice already in existence, we can see how the relationship between the GP and his patient may be destroyed. The trust would no longer exist between them.
A general practitioner is an unusual person within the health service today. He is not only a provider; he is also a commissioner of services on behalf of his patient. I am therefore slightly worried about hospital and community trusts setting up new health centres. If they used salaried doctors—or even if they did not—there would arise a clash of interests between the doctor and his patient in the commissioning part of the duty to the patient.
I cannot see how we can retain the trust of the patient in the doctor, a trust of which we are so proud in this country and which has carried our health service through all its troubles. It is the basis of the general practitioner services that has helped us through the many difficulties that we have encountered. I sincerely hope that the Government will accept the amendment.
Lord Walton of Detchant: At Second Reading I gave considerable support to the spirit underlying the Bill now being considered in Committee. However, I support in principle the spirit underlying Amendment No. 1. Having said that, perhaps I may make clear that I have long believed in the importance of a partnership between public and private medical care. I have certainly appreciated such developments in our hospitals. The efforts made 20 years ago by a former Labour Government to try to remove all private beds from our NHS hospitals did irreparable harm to the service and, at the same time, gave an enormous impetus to the development of private medical care outside NHS hospitals. Happily, many NHS hospitals now provide private medical care and derive a considerable income from doing so.
However, general practice is different. There is nothing to prevent a private company from employing salaried general practitioners who are offering private
1400
primary care. That can surely not be an objection. But for many years it has been the case that private commercial companies have employed occupational health physicians. They are employees of the company. They are there in the interests of the company to examine and report on employees relating to their fitness to practice and also relating to issues that may arise in consequence of disorders or diseases resulting from their respective occupations. But if an occupational health physician detects evidence of an illness in someone whom the company has asked him or her to examine, then it is not up to that occupational health physician to prescribe or offer treatment. But, with the permission of the patient, that physician should report to the patient's general practitioner who would then offer treatment to that individual.
The problem that I foresee if private commercial companies were able to employ general practitioners is that there would be a real or perceived conflict of interest between the commercial interests of the company on the one hand and the general practitioner services on the other. Many GPs have worked part-time as occupational health doctors, but in doing so they have separate contracts: one as an independent contractor with the NHS and the other on a sessional basis with the commercial company. The duties under those two contracts are totally separate and distinct. It is a possibility, as the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, said, that a doctor employed to give general medical services through a commercial company might feel under pressure to prescribe the products of that company and might not therefore be able to function properly and independently, as every general practitioner should, in the interests of his patient and in the interests of the community. For those reasons, I support the principle underlying this amendment.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I find the amendment rather complicated and I believe that a number of points have not been thought through. The amendment refers to "personal medical services". Does that mean medical services only or does it include dental services? If the term medical services includes dental services, perhaps I should point out that dental companies and companies that provide treatment already exist. British Petroleum employs a dentist within its building. He is paid by the company but operates on national health dental forms and claims fees from the National Health Service. I refer to British Petroleum because it was near my surgery. It took that course because it had many people—British citizens—coming in from different parts of the world who had to be seen rapidly and could not be sure of getting an appointment elsewhere. If that same firm wanted to have a general medical practitioner, would it be precluded from doing so under this amendment?
As a dentist I practised for years as one of the directors of a dental company. A number of dental companies are registered under the General Dental

1401
Register. I do not know whether medical companies exist. I do not know whether dental companies are still registered, but they certainly are a fact of life.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: I agree with the noble Baroness. The question of the nature of the company is very difficult. That is why we used the terms in the amendment. They may not be precise but, as we know, if the principle of an amendment is accepted, the Government are always willing to help with that. Where a company pays dividends, that is different from a practice. We took the example of one in Dorset where a group of general practitioners working together form a company. However, they do not pay out dividends. That is the distinction which one can make in broad terms between the type of company we would wish to see excluded and a broad collection of professionals in practice, which I think is what the noble Baroness is speaking about.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I am interested in that comment. The General Dental Council had strict rules on what proportion of dentists had to be directors of the company. It was not an open matter and no new companies could be created. It was only companies created prior to 1957.
The noble Baroness referred to whether dividends are paid. Whether a number of practitioners working together share remuneration or whether payments are classified as dividends, are taxation matters. If tomorrow, or at some later stage, a new Chancellor said that it was more advantageous to be paid dividends than a salary, one would rapidly find practitioners wanting to pay themselves dividends. Therefore, I have doubts about that argument.
The noble Baroness, Lady Robson, was concerned about trusts employing people. At Second Reading I said that the trust of which I am chairman, which is a large teaching hospital, has general practitioners who come in on a salaried basis for so many sessions. They come into the accident and emergency department and are enormously valuable. So many patients, particularly in London, who should go to a general practitioner do not do so. They present themselves at the accident and emergency or casualty department. They take time and attention away from the proper treatment of emergencies. Therefore, I think it is important that we should be able to employ these people.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: I am aware that hospitals do that. I was talking about health authorities setting up complete health service centres in some other part of the area in which they function.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: When I was vice-chairman of the North-East Thames Regional Health Authority, there was such a scarcity of dentists in some parts of Essex that we had to consider setting up salaried practices there in health centres. All those situations exist. It is quite impossible to predict when and where these needs will arise.
1402
Another point has been overlooked. A number of doctors, particularly younger doctors, quite like the idea of working as salaried practitioners. Many do not want the burden of practice management and would prefer to be salaried. Therefore, we want to leave open some flexibility for such a situation.
The noble Baroness, Lady Robson, referred to the trust between doctor and patient. Where that exists, it is marvellous. There could not be a better relationship. Sadly, however, although it works in the very best practices, it does not work everywhere. There would hardly be a practice in this country which did not have at least one disagreeable patient that it found difficult to get along with. Health authorities would say that they often have to allocate patients to doctors because no doctor wants to take the patients voluntarily. It is an idealistic and desirable thing for this trust to be continuing at the highest level; but, sadly, it is not always so.
I am opposed to any amendment which might limit possibilities for patients. We should be putting patients first. We tend—I say this as a dentist—to have a degree of self-interest as to what suits us as practitioners. That is not good enough. We have to put patients first. The walk-in private medical service at Victoria Station is a great success. The idea is such a success that centres will be set up elsewhere. It is clear that many patients would like to have that walk-in service. The system of a company setting up a practice would enable patients to have the right to walk in when they felt like it.
I would not want to insert anything into the Bill that would prevent that happening. We have to leave open our options—we are always hearing that expression in another context—because we do not know what good and innovative schemes will be brought forward. The amendment might well preclude schemes that would be of the greatest benefit to patients. I oppose the amendment.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: I wish to ask the Minister about the pilot schemes. Where will the patients' records be kept? If a practice sets up in a supermarket, will the records be kept in the supermarket? The noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, referred to the walk-in centre at Victoria Station, which I have heard is very popular. What happens there with the patients' records? Records take up quite a lot of space.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: Perhaps I may reply to that point. I do not know what happens to the records at Victoria Station. I do know that we are now reaching the point where records can be available on line by computer much more readily. Therefore, they could be held at the original base and then be made available. However, we get into this tremendously complex situation regarding patient confidentiality. The patient would have to release the right for the records to be obtained from the original source, and you would have to be quite sure that when the original source received your request, it was satisfied that you were the legitimate person. I believe

1403
that it might be a very complicated issue as regards patient confidentiality and computer records. But in technical terms it is possible to do that. The other aspect is that many people who use the service at Victoria Station just have an anxiety about something and want to see a doctor then and there at the moment of their choice.
3.30 p.m.
Baroness Cumberlege: This amendment implies that GPs will find it hard to hold their own in the new system; that they will struggle to come up with proposals that will win approval as pilot schemes and that they need protecting. We strongly believe that none of those is the case. GPs have shown time and time again that they are innovative, imaginative and able to deliver better services to patients in new ways. GPs, dentists, NHS trusts and other frontline NHS staff are closest to patients and we look to them to bring forward proposals about how we can improve services for local people. That is why we have given GPs, dentists and NHS trusts, and only those groups, the automatic right for their proposals to be put forward to the Secretary of State for approval as pilot schemes. We are confident that they will seize the opportunity. We are sure that they do not need to fear competition, let alone be protected from it.
As well as being unnecessary, we believe that this amendment will be damaging to the NHS. The prime purpose of our proposals is to enable existing GP practices to do more and to do it better. But there may be circumstances, as my noble friend Lady Gardner said, where a salaried GP service would be the best option. We all know of the difficulties that arise in filling practice vacancies in some inner city areas. We are serious about tackling these difficulties and do not want to rule out any sensible opportunities, including a GP being employed by a commercial organisation. After all, what is piloting for if not to see if innovation works?
I should like to make this very clear: the Secretary of State will only countenance new arrangements if there are obvious gains attached to them. New services will be subject to NHS rules and standards. In particular, we will want to be absolutely sure that there is no potential for conflicts of interest before allowing any specific proposal to go ahead—a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Walton.
Talk of commercialisation in this context is a nonsense. GPs have always been in the private sector in that they are private contractors. Indeed, it might be practically impossible to differentiate between, say, a group of GPs and other healthcare workers who formed a limited company and a company already operating in the commercial sector with suitable experience of providing medical or dental services. To differentiate in this way would be unjust and unfair. Why rule out companies which pay dividends and not private companies? If private companies, why not partnerships? The point is that no one can draw firm lines between these bodies. What is important is that the services that they might offer should be NHS services for NHS patients to NHS standards.
1404
The noble Baroness, Lady Jay, ignores the fact that schemes put forward by commercial organisations will have to be endorsed by health authorities and then approved by the Secretary of State. One of their concerns will be to ensure that pilot schemes meet local needs including, in particular, improving services in areas which are not currently well served. The example that I have already given is the inner cities. Our proposals open the way to greater equity and better access to NHS services for all.
Our commitment to NHS primary care is beyond doubt. We believe that this amendment will do nothing for primary care, nothing for professionals and nothing for patients. Therefore, I urge the Committee not to support it.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. I thought that the particularly illuminating sentence in her reply was that in which she said there was no way that the Government would rule out a private organisation being involved in these pilot schemes, which is precisely what was being denied as speculation in previous debates on this subject both in your Lordships' House and in another place.
If it is really the Government's policy that they do not rule out private companies being involved we have at least achieved clarity about the intent of part of this Bill. It is a clarity that we on these Benches find extremely disturbing. It is disturbing because although the Minister may argue that there are forms and ways in which this may help local services, the fact is that they are involving commercial organisations and the problems about conflicts of interest which the noble Lord, Lord Walton, so eloquently described in his contribution to the debate, cannot be ruled out.
I am surprised that the Minister used the words "protecting GPs". Indeed, one would wish to see GPs protected from that sort of conflict of interest, which would be difficult for their professional practice as well as doing nothing, as the Minister said, to enhance the well-being or, indeed, the useful healthcare of patients.
I believe that the point is that what has been revealed in this short debate, and most specifically by the Minister's reply, is that all of the points made at Second Reading about the potential for diversity, which we all welcome—we on these Benches underline our welcome for diversity in extending primary care—did not lead to the kind of deregulation, competition and privatisation, which precisely would undermine the basic principles of the health service in the way that I described in my opening remarks in moving the amendment.
What we have learnt this afternoon is that, despite all the warm words of the Government and their plethora of White Papers about their determination to support and extend primary care within the NHS, they are quite content to see commercial organisations involved whose basic profit bottom line is their basic guiding principle. The Government are willing to see that kind of element introduced into the essential

1405
nature of our primary care system, which is GP services. On the basis of that very clear distinction of principle and understanding of what NHS primary care should be delivering in this country, I will have to seek the opinion of the Committee.
Baroness Cumberlege: Perhaps I may just explain to the noble Baroness that I said that no scheme could be ruled out from being considered by a health authority. As the noble Baroness is a member of a health authority she will know how diligent members are in seeking to ensure that the services that are provided for their populations are to a high standard and that they comply with the NHS rules.
These are the very principles that we are putting forward for these schemes. It is the health authority who will say, perhaps, "No, we do not believe that this is value for money because, after all, it is still public money. No, we do not believe that this scheme is going to serve patients, and we do not believe that it is going to serve staff'.
That is twisting what I actually said. I believe that the noble Baroness will realise that if patients have to be registered with their GP, with public money and NHS standards and rules, then the health authority will weigh all that up. If it is then in the interests of the population served, the health authority has the prerogative to put that forward to the Secretary of State. He will then make a judgment on the criteria that I have laid out as to whether these schemes are going to benefit the local people.
To merely imply that the commercial sector is always a brigand; is always ready to waste resources and is evil in any way, is plagiarising the situation. We know that sometimes the private sector helps the health service. We have only to consider hospital doctors sponsored by the private sector through research programmes to know that they contribute enormously to the National Health Service. The noble Baroness said that she will seek the opinion of the Committee. I am convinced that it will want to oppose this amendment.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: I am bound to return to the Minister's points. She accuses me of twisting her words. I said nothing in my reply to her response to the amendment that implied that I regarded commercial companies as evil. That would be inappropriate. Before I seek the opinion of the House, can the Minister say whether in principle pilot schemes proposed by commercial companies will be looked at favourably or otherwise on the grounds considered by the Secretary of State? The bottom line question is whether the proposals for pilot schemes by commercial companies will be considered by the Secretary of State.
Baroness Cumberlege: The noble Baroness misunderstands the Bill. The Secretary of State will consider these proposals only if they are forwarded by the health authority. It is the health authority that acts as a sieve and has the right of veto if it believes that the proposals are not in the interests of the local population or the taxpayer.
3.40 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 122; Not-Contents, 145.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L. [Teller.]

Kinloss, Ly.

Alderdice, L.

Longford, E.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

McFarlane of Llandaff, B.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Avebury, L.

McNair, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

McNally, L.

Berkeley, L.

Mar, C.

Borne, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Callaghan of Cardiff, L.

Mayhew, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Carter, L.

Molloy, L.

Castle of Blackburn, B.

Monckton of Brenchley, V.

Chandos, V.

Monkswell, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Nathan, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Nicol, B.

Currie of Marylebone, L.

Ogmore, L.

David, B.

Paul, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Peny of Walton, L.

Dean of Thomton-le-Fylde, B.

Peston, L.

Desai, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Diamond, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Dubs, L.

Rea, L.

Exmouth, V.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Ezra, L.

Rix, L.

Falkender, B.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Farrington of Ribblcton, B.

Rochester, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Fitt, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Gallacher, L.

Sandwich, E.

Geraint, L.

Scanlon, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Serota, B.

Gould of Pottemewton, B.

Sewel, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Simon, V.

Gregson, L.

Smith, L.

Grey, E.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Hampton, L.

Stallard, L.

Hanworth, V.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Haskel, L.

Strafford, E.

Hayman, B.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Healey, L.

Taverne, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Hollick, L.

Tenby, V.

Hooson, L.

Thurso, V.

Howell, L.

Tope, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Tordoff, L.

Hughes, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Hutchinson of Lullington, L.

Varley, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Ilchester, E.

Walton of Detchant, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Warnock, B.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

White, B.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Whiny, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Kilpatrick of Kincraig, L.

Winston, L.

1407

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Inglewood, L.

Addison, V.

Ironside, L.

Ailesbury, M.

Johnston of Rockport, L.

Aldington, L.

Keyes, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Kingsland, L.

Alport, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Ampthill, L.

Knollys, V.

Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L.

Lawson of Blaby, L.

Arran, E.

Long, V.

Ashboume, L.

Lucas, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Balfour, E.

Lyell, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Birdwood, L.

McConnell, L.

Blake, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Blaker, L.

Mackay of Clashfem, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Blatch, B.

Mackay of Drumadoon, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Marlesford, L.

Brentford, V.

Merrivale, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Mersey, V.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Middleton, L.

Butterworth, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Byford, B.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Cadman, L.

Mountevans, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Munster, E.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Murton of Lindisfame, L.

Camegy of Lour, B.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

Noel-Buxton, L.

Chelmsford, V.

Northesk, E.

Chesham, L. [Teller.]

Onslow, E.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Cochrane of Cults, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Cornwallis, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Courtown, E.

Palmer, L.

Craig of Radley, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Cranbome, V. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Pender, L.

Cranworth, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L

Cross, V.

Pym, L.

Cuckney, L.

Quinton, L.

Cullen of Ashboume, L.

Reay, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Renton, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Renwick, L.

Davidson, V.

Richardson, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

St. Davids, V.

Denbigh, E.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Derwent, L.

Sandford, L.

Dilhome, V.

Seccombe, B.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Sharples, B.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Elles, B.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Strange, B.

Erne, E.

Strathcarron, L.

Flather, B.

Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Gainford, L.

Swinfen, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Terrington, L.

Geddes, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Gerard, L.

Thurlow, L.

Gisborough, L.

Trumpington, B.

Glentoran, L.

Ullswater, V.

Goschen, V.

Vivian, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Greenway, L.

Wilberforce, L.

Haddington, E.

Wilcox, B.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Wynford, L.

Hannsworth, L.

Young, B.

Hemphill, L.

Henley, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Hothfield, L.

Howe, E.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
3.49 p.m.
Clause 1 [Pilot schemes]:
Baroness McFarlane of Llandaff Baroness McFarlane of Llandaff moved Amendment No. 2:
Page I. line 14, at end insert ("or
(c) services are provided which are not personal medical services or personal dental services but which may be provided under Part I of the National Health Service Act 1977 or (as the case may be) Part 1 of the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978.").
The noble Baroness said: I beg to move Amendment No. 2. In doing so I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 9 and 29 in addition. The purpose of the amendment is to clarify that nurses may propose pilot schemes in their own right rather than via a doctor or NHS trust. Amendment No. 9 seeks to ensure that health authorities will prepare proposals for any pilot scheme put forward by nurses; and Amendment No. 29 seeks to allow nurses providing nursing services in pilot schemes to apply to become health service bodies.
At Second Reading the Minister paid tribute to the important contribution of nurses in primary care. She said (at col. 591 of Hansard):
"The nursing profession already plays a major and growing part in the delivery of primary care. We want to encourage that trend and also greater integration of the different primary healthcare professions. Our proposals will enable nurses to develop proposals with GPs which include a range of services in which they take a lead, such as child health clinics or monitoring of asthma".
Questions were asked at Second Reading about the nature of the ability of nurses to submit pilot schemes in the terms of the Bill. If nurses are to be full partners in the multi-disciplinary team in primary care and if, as the White Paper Choice and Opportunity states, they have an equally important part to play with other professionals, the Bill needs to give expression to this equality. As it stands, it presents barriers to the nurse acting independently of GPs or trusts in proposing pilot schemes. Subsection (3) of Clause 1 implies that a pilot scheme could include nursing services only as part of a wider pilot but nurses acting alone could not propose a pilot scheme. Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 seek to rewrite this subsection to define pilot schemes as covering all nursing and other services which may be provided.
Clause 2 presents a further barrier. It sets out the duties of health authorities to consider pilot schemes submitted to them by "a qualified person" and to prepare proposals for submission to the Secretary of State. Subsection (7) defines "a qualified person" as either an NHS trust or a medical or dental practitioner.
Amendment No. 9 adds nurses to the list of qualified persons, thus allowing nurse-promoted pilots the same status as other pilots. This would allow nurses to maximise the potential of the Bill.
Amendment No. 29 to Clause 13 allows nurses providing services under a pilot scheme to apply to become a health service body rather than restricting that status to persons providing personal medical or personal dental services. Not all primary healthcare services can

1409
be subsumed under the description "personal medical or personal dental services". Nurses and other healthcare professionals provide services which are complementary to medical and dental services and the multi-disciplinary team needs to work in a partnership.
Nurses, midwives and health visitors provide a wide range of specialised services in primary healthcare. They make a major contribution to health promotion through health education and a range of preventive services. The health visitor, for instance, is well trained in epidemiological analysis.
The amendments before the Committee would liberate nurses to develop a range of services for vulnerable client groups who fail to engage with and remain untouched by GP services which exist at the moment on a so-called "come and get it" basis. Pilot schemes in health education, screening programmes and epidemiological services would be eminently suitable as pilot schemes, as well as the child health clinics and monitoring of asthma mentioned by the noble Baroness at Second Reading.
The contribution of community psychiatric nurses has been well acknowledged. It is the view of the Royal College of Nursing that, in partnership with a medical practitioner in mental health, nurses could contract with a health authority to provide a 24-hour emergency mental health service for a locality. Similarly, in partnership a team of nurse practitioners could contract to deliver a wide range of services for homeless people not registered with a GP.
The NHS Executive report published in June of this year, Primary Care: the Future, paid tribute to the role of the nursing services in primary healthcare. It drew attention to their many strengths: the work they do in health needs assessment, health promotion and illness prevention, as well as nursing care of patients with acute long-term illnesses. It said that their services are readily accessible and available in a variety of settings and that nurses are already well qualified and have many postgraduate qualifications and some have degrees.
The nursing contribution to clinical audit and research is increasingly strong. The report drew attention to the fact that nurses play a leading role in the provision of immunisation, clinical cytology and disease management through practice nurses, child health surveillance, nurse-led minor injuries clinics, nurse-led home care schemes and nurse-led specialist services such as parenting skills, dermatology, leg ulcer and palliative care.
In looking for areas of development, the NHS Executive report saw scope for nurses to widen their role but said that there should be a change in the way teams worked and the structures underpinning them. We believe that community nurses are in a prime position to lead and co-ordinate such services with their existing links in the community. For example, an integrated team of community nurses could provide local people with access to acute mental health and community medical services through the nurses themselves and through referral and joint working with GPs and professional
1410
sallied to medicine. A senior nurse in full partnership could be instrumental in leading such a team and maximising the contribution of community nurses.
The amendment before your Lordships' Committee is an essential step in providing the structural arrangements necessary for nurses to be maximised in their contribution to healthcare.
4 p.m.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: I would like to support the noble Baroness, Lady McFarlane, in moving Amendment No. 2 and the other amendments in this group. As she has rightly stressed, there are many other professions who contribute greatly to the important overall care that we receive in the primary healthcare setting. The noble Baroness rightly stressed the important role of nurses in this and the need that they have, and professionally feel would be appropriate, to become leading partners and not just supporters in the new experimental pilots which the Bill will allow. It is obvious that nurses are in an advantageous position to put forward ideas and to manage any pilot scheme.
I should like to mention some other professions allied to medicine and working in the primary health care field which equally feel that they could take a lead in forming pilots and delivering services. For example, health visitors are among the other well-qualified people. in the commonsense meaning of the term, who would be able to do that, as are pharmacists, occupational therapists, clinical psychologists and, of course, midwives. As the noble Baroness said, nurses and community nurses are already working independently in organisations such as minor injuries units.
It is clear that the work of those other professionals is often done independently. Indeed, one example has been given of a primary care team where the nurses employ a general practitioner. It seems that it would be legitimate, within the meaning of the Bill and the pilots as they were described by the Minister in introducing the Bill on Second Reading, to give nurses and the other professionals I have mentioned a lead role in the pilots.
The Royal College of Midwives is especially keen that midwives should take a lead in some of the pilots. As it says, maternity care provides an ideal opportunity. It could become a model service. It could move pregnancy and childbirth out of hospital and back into family-centred community services. It feels that that is in line with the spirit of the Government's changing childbirth initiative, with which we know the Minister has had a leading and influential role.
All those people bring their skills and professional backgrounds to the concept of the team approach to primary care which we all welcome and which is clearly an important way of dealing with the needs of the community. My noble friend Lord Rea emphasised at Second Reading the need for the team to be seen as a body of equals rather than as one partner taking the lead over other professionals. In that context it would be interesting to know whether any group of professionals—whether or not the amendment stands—will be able to put forward pilot schemes if they are not formally incorporated into a partnership at the moment.

1411
For example, would a group of GPs who are not already in partnership together within the technical meaning of the words within the Bill qualify as "qualified people"?
The Government have today produced a further White Paper on developing partnerships in care entitled Primary Care: Delivering the Future in which they emphasise the notion of the team approach to primary care, specifically include the proposal to extend the existing nurse prescribing pilot scheme and make other proposals which show that they regard nurses, in particular, and other professionals working within the community as equal partners in the delivery of health care in the community. It therefore seems appropriate, as the noble Baroness, Lady McFarlane, said, to include those people specifically on the face of the Bill as people who can lead on the pilot schemes which are proposed. I support the amendment.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: We on these Benches support the amendment. We have for many years tried to achieve greater recognition of the contribution that nurses make to our health service. It seems to me, as it does to the noble Baronesses, Lady McFarlane and Lady Jay, wrong, when nurses can now be a full partner in a general practice, that they should not be able together to put forward a pilot scheme which might be of the most tremendous use in the community.
One suggestion was that nurses could propose a pilot scheme of 24-hour emergency mental health services. There is nothing we need more in our health service at the moment than an improvement in mental health care in the community. It is difficult to understand why nursing services are not personal medical services—I know why they are not personal dental services—which may be provided under Part I of the NHS Act. It is long overdue for nurses to be given the recognition they deserve. I support the amendment.
Lord Campbell of Croy: It is appropriate that the amendment should be moved by the noble Baroness, Lady McFarlane, who has immense experience in the nursing profession and as a leader of it. I, too, received the text of the amendment, and two others in the group, from the Royal College of Nursing.
As noble Lords will be aware, my main experience of nurses is as a hospital patient over long periods, including a year and two months at the end of World War II. I have tremendous admiration for their dedication and the contributions they make to different parts of the NHS. I am glad that nurses nowadays are authorised to do a good deal more than they were 50 years ago. I shall listen closely to what my noble friend the Minister has to say about the amendments.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I, too, am a great supporter of the nursing profession, and, indeed, of all the people involved in the primary care delivered to patients. It will be a pity if they are not all equally entitled to bring forward a pilot scheme. As my noble friend the Minister told us on the previous amendment,
1412
the pilots will all be sifted by the DHA. So we are not committing anyone to accepting any scheme that is not appropriate and suitable.
It is wrong to stifle the initiation of schemes by excluding a number of different branches of the caring professions. I include pharmacists who are great innovators within their own practices and who are doing more and more all the time towards helping patients and removing the burden from GPs. We have had no mention of opticians. It would be desirable for any people with a health qualification—I am not saying that any member of the public could come forward with a scheme, because that would make the provision too wide—and any member of the caring professions, allied to medicine, or who are part of the primary care team, to be able to bring forward a scheme.
I support the principle behind this group of amendments. However, when it comes to practicalities, I notice that the noble Baroness, Lady McFarlane, referred to Clause 2(7) which sets out the two lists of medical practitioners and dental practitioners. I wonder whether, rather than produce a list of other qualifications—we should need to include them all—there could be an amendment to the effect of "all other approved qualified people" or some more general phrase. Because even within the caring professions, modifications, changes and new terminologies are coming all the time for people doing different jobs. I would rather see the provision sufficiently wide to cover those people who might be branching into a new form of medical care as well as those who are involved at present. I support the principle of the amendment.
Lord Walton of Detchant: I, too, support the principles underlying the amendments. The past 25 years have seen a veritable revolution in the range and quality of services provided by nurses, health visitors, midwives and others. Indeed, within the NHS itself there are many circumstances in our hospital service when nurses have been appointed as managers of various hospital trusts.
The purpose, I think, underlying the amendments is to acknowledge the fact that nurses, working in collaboration with, and in future perhaps in partnership with, doctors are capable of providing a wide range of services and of relieving the GP of certain duties and responsibilities that he or she may, in the past, have carried. It is a very important principle that we should accept. There have been circumstances, particularly in our inner cities, where the most impoverished section of the population and the homeless have found themselves being looked after by nurse practitioners; people who have not registered with general practitioners.
When I heard the Minister reply to the debate on the first amendment I was almost persuaded by her argument that pilot studies must be approved by the health authorities and the Secretary of State on the advice of those authorities. Surely, if we are to give the same responsibilities for the initiation of pilot schemes to members of the nursing and allied professions, only those examples which are regarded by the health authorities and

1413
the Secretary of State as being suitable will be approved. For that reason I believe that this group of amendments has considerable strength. I support them.
Baroness Eccles of Moulton: There is an aspect of the amendment which we should consider. It follows from the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Walton. In the early stages pilot schemes will require a heavy workload of assessment and monitoring by the health authorities. It would be helpful if in reply the Minister could indicate the effect on the monitoring and pilot process of widening the range of individuals and bodies which can enter into pilot schemes. We must bear in mind that health authorities are continually under pressure to reduce their management activities. Although they will be taking on the extra work of monitoring the pilot schemes, we must be mindful of other tasks which must be performed at the same time.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: As this is the Committee stage, I am sure that I am allowed to intervene again. I wish to follow the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Eccles. Of course it might create too great a burden for the district health authorities, but surely through local medical committees and equivalent pharmacy and nursing committees there must be some way of setting up an earlier filtration system in order to avoid that burden. I understand the argument that we would not wish to make the system totally unpracticable.
Baroness Cumberlege: I strongly support the views expressed by many Members today concerning the role of nurses. The noble Baroness, Lady McFarlane, could not be a better champion for the cause, knowing more about the nursing profession than anyone in the Chamber today.
I too have strongly supported the role of community nursing. When I carried out the review, Neighbourhood Nursing: A focus for care, I recognised very strongly in the report that the role of nurses is fast developing and that there is plenty of potential for them to take on more duties and responsibilities and to use their full range of skills. That report recognises the services provided by nurses, midwives and health visitors in their totality of primary healthcare and that primary care was at its best when provided by a range of professional staff working together as members of a primary healthcare team. The Bill before the House and the White Paper, Primary Care: Delivering the Future, which was published today, also significantly support those objectives.
I have given these amendments a great deal of consideration. I am very clear that nothing should stand in the way of nurses, midwives and health visitors playing a full part in using the flexibility provided in this legislation to develop not only their professional skills but to use opportunities. I am convinced that this can be achieved within the Bill.
Amendment No. 2 would allow the services currently provided under Part I of the 1977 Act to be provided through pilot arrangements. These are the services which we usually describe as hospital and community
1414
health services and are currently provided through health authorities or GP fundholders who may purchase hospital and community health services on behalf of their patients.
The amendment seeks to enable the piloting of community nursing services and others in addition to the pilots for personal medical services and personal dental services. I believe that this Bill already provides a significant opportunity for nurses through the development of their skills as members of the primary care team either in partnership with GPs or through taking on a more significant role in a trust that provides primary care services.
Amendment No. 9 aims to provide an automatic right to have proposals submitted to the Secretary of State to ensure that where, for example, a health authority has reservations about a proposal it may not block its scrutiny and potential approval at national level. Of course, we would not expect this to happen in the normal course of events. We are very confident that health authorities would want the widest range of proposals to be examined. But nevertheless we felt it was important to enshrine the principle of unfettered access to the Secretary of State within the legislation.
The health authority would need to be satisfied that any scheme not proposed by a suitably qualified doctor or dentist, or led by an NHS trust as proposer, could deliver the services proposed and had sufficient merit to warrant submission. Where a proposal was put before the health authority by any other professionals—and a good example might be of a nursing led proposal—it would look at the soundness of the proposal and use its discretion in deciding whether to prepare the proposals and submit them to the Secretary of State.
The proposed amendment does not add to the existing legislation. The health authority can already use its discretion in the way that the amendment provides. A similar line of argument applies to Amendment No. 10 which seeks to add UKCC registered nurses, midwives and health visitors to those persons who would have an automatic right to have their proposal for a pilot scheme passed to the Secretary of State for consideration.
As the Bill stands, nurses, midwives or health visitors putting together a proposal would need to secure health authority support for their proposal to be submitted to the Secretary of State. I believe this is reasonable since a health authority would have to be convinced that a pilot scheme which replaces general medical services with personal medical services would satisfactorily cover those areas of care which explicitly have to be provided by doctors. If doctors are co-initiators of the scheme, which would be the normal model for a pilot with substantial or even majority nursing interest, then the doctor can formally put the proposal to the health authority and automatic submission of the proposal would apply. If doctors are not involved in the proposal then it will need to be clearly set out how the medical practitioner input to the pilot will be made.
It is in everyone's interest that prior to the proposal going to the Secretary of State there is the opportunity for the proposers and the health authority to discuss fully the arrangements. My noble friend Lady Eccles

1415
spoke of the workload, which is a serious consideration. I am sure that if the health authority believed that a proposal merited support it would want to see it go forward to the Secretary of State.
Amendment No. 28 would seek to take nursing beyond the scope set out during our year long consultation on the future of primary care. What it envisages is that nurses will be able to provide medical services in the place of a doctor; that a nurse, or a midwife or a health professional, would deputise fully for a GP.
Our consultation has made it clear beyond doubt that we need to move to make more of the great potential there is for nursing professionals; but we do not want to turn nurses into doctors. Indeed, this Bill will allow nurses to play a full role as equal partners in the primary care team by allowing more explicit account to be taken of their skills. It is not appropriate that they will do the same job as doctors. I am sure nurses would agree.
The pilots will be replacing general medical services with personal medical services. In doing so, pilots will need satisfactorily to cover those areas of care which need to be covered by doctors. Doctors' vocational training and the particular role that they play in providing services to those on a patient list emphasises the rather different and discrete role that they play. The point is that GPs have spent at least nine years learning about the breadth and depth of the art and science of medicine and diagnosis; which conditions they can treat themselves; and which require the expertise of hospital care or primary health care colleagues, including nurses, midwives and health visitors who themselves possess skills unique to their professions. Doctors do not have all the skills of nurses and neither can nurses stand wholly in the place of doctors.
Amendment No. 48 goes wider than the proposals for pilots or for permanent schemes and is making a separate point about midwives in general. Midwives play a central role in line with Changing Childbirth, as the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, said, and in many cases the midwife is the lead professional providing maternity care across hospital and community settings. Our consultations on primary care reiterated and endorsed many of the points put forward in Changing Childbirth. There was continuing demand for more appropriate use of the skills and experience of midwives and the importance of maternity care professionals working together in a complementary way to give the best care for women.
Midwives of course already have autonomy in the care of women in normal pregnancy and childbirth. I understand that the move towards a primary care-led NHS has led midwives to look at new ways of working. I understand that a very small number have been looking at ways that they might contract through NHS contracts with health authorities and fundholders. The proposed amendment would enable them to contract through NHS contracts.
This Bill would already allow midwives working with GPs or NHS trusts to be innovative. They might, for example, look at new ways of delivering maternity care in the community in partnership with a community trust
1416
or a GP. This would achieve the aims of midwives who wish to further the aims of Changing Childbirth. Moreover, it would enable them to place NHS contracts with other NHS bodies.
Baroness Hayman: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. She has spoken of midwives being lead professionals in some areas and of nurses being equal partners in others. In that case, why are proposals that are put forward by nurses, midwives or other professionals dealt with not through the system that applies to doctors and dentists where there is an automatic referral to the Secretary of State but through what was described earlier as a sifting system reserved for the Asdas, the supermarkets and commercial organisations? Surely, that is not sending the right message regarding the esteem and value which we are placing on those professionals.
Baroness Cumberlege: The difference is that the majority of health visitors, district nurses and midwives are already employed by NHS trusts, whereas doctors and dentists are private contractors who choose to have a contract with the health service for part of their activities. Certainly that is the case for dentists and that covers the vast majority of GPs' activities. That is the difference.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jay, asked whether a group of GPs who are not in partnership will be able to put forward a proposal. Yes, they will. There is no reason why individual GPs not in a formal partnership should not be able to put forward a proposal.
The noble Baroness, Lady Robson, cited a scheme where mental health services could be improved and the majority of the work would be done by community psychiatric nurses. That is a scheme which I am sure the health authority would wish to consider and there would be no objection to that being put forward to the Secretary of State if it was felt that that would improve services locally. The same applies to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Walton, in relation to health visitors working with the homeless. I believe that in every scheme that I have seen, the health visitor was employed by the trust and of course, the trust would have a fast track, as it were, to the Secretary of State.
Therefore, we feel that these amendments are unnecessary. We believe that the Bill meets the aspirations which are being sought, and we hope that the noble Baroness will not seek to press the amendment.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: Before the Minister sits down, perhaps I may ask her (or perhaps I should ask the noble Baroness, Lady McFarlane) what would happen about insurance if midwives and nurses were taking full responsibility for patients? Is it not the case that insurance costs for doctors have gone sky high? Would nurses and midwives be able to afford that? I just ask that as a question.
Baroness McFarlane of Llandaff: I feel tremendously encouraged by the support that I have received from all sides of the Committee. It is

1417
encouraging to have the tributes to the professions other than medicine and dentistry which we are thinking about here.
To turn to the independent practice of nurses and midwives to which the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, referred, nurses, midwives and health visitors are practitioners in their own right and they are insured for their full professional indemnity through various agencies, although they hold joint liability as an individual, with the trusts employing them and with the medical staff who may be involved in a case. Therefore, nurses, midwives and health visitors have professional liability for their actions.
I have tried to follow the Minister's arguments in the case. I have difficulty in understanding her inability to accept the amendments and to allow access by nurses, midwives and health visitors in particular, and some other professions, to this right to submit pilot schemes in their own right. Nevertheless, I wish to consider very carefully what the Minister said on this occasion, and I should like an opportunity to study the White Paper that has been published today and perhaps return to this matter on another occasion. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Rea Lord Rea moved Amendment No.3:
Page 1, line 15, leave out subsection (2).
The noble Lord said: This amendment would remove subsection (2) of Clause 1. It would remove the words:
"A pilot scheme may not combine arrangements for the provision of personal medical services with arrangements for the provision of personal dental services".
When the Minister replies to the amendment, she will probably tell me that there are good technical reasons why medical and dental services cannot both be included in a single pilot scheme. If so, I hope that she will spell those out for our benefit.
I have personal experience of working in a health centre which housed both medical and dental practitioners providing National Health Service general medical services and general dental services. That was very much appreciated by the patients of the health centre, the GPs and the dentists. It was a convenient and professionally fruitful arrangement. Several times a week there would be cross-referrals between the dentists and the doctors. As the noble Lord, Lord Walton, will know only too well as a neurologist (although I am sorry that he is not in his seat) a headache can sometimes be due to dental pain. Dentists often found that it was useful to ask GPs about the health or allergic status of particular patients which concerned them. As the records were on the premises, it made it easy to obtain that information.
Sadly, that arrangement terminated because the dental practice felt that the health authority was overcharging it for the premises, quite apart from the fact that it did not feel that the NHS was paying dentists enough for their services either.
If a scheme were to be proposed which provided needed dental and medical services in, for example, a deprived area, would two separate but perhaps
1418
co-operating pilot schemes have to be put forward simultaneously—one for dentists and one for doctors? That seems rather cumbersome.
This is a probing amendment to find out what this prohibition on merging the two services in one scheme is all about. I beg to move.
4.30 p.m.
Baroness Cumberlege: We support wholeheartedly the objective behind this amendment—that of encouraging better integration of services provided by different professions. This has been one of our aims in primary care for some time and we have made good progress. Primary health care teams are stronger than ever and there is co-operation between GPs and dentists in some of the total purchasing pilot schemes.
The provision in the Bill, which the amendment seeks to remove, will not hinder further progress. On the contrary, the provision in the Bill helps to provide a framework of rules within which innovation and integration can flourish and without which we might in future face unnecessary complications. The provision rules out the option of a single scheme—and a single contract—covering both personal medical and dental services. General practice and dentistry are very distinct services, as I am sure the noble Lord will agree, with very different financial and practical arrangements. The Bill maintains this distinction and avoids the complexities that could arise if the services were covered by the same contract.
The provision serves a useful purpose, but it will certainly not prevent co-operation between doctors and dentists in a range of different ways. Indeed, we will encourage such developments which in some locations, though probably not generally, will be the best way to provide both services. Co-operation may involve the sharing of premises or planning services together. It may well involve examining local health needs together and co-operating over the preparation of pilot proposals which tackle these. The main constraint is that the contracts which emerge from successful proposals will be separate. I hope that I have made the reasons clear as to why we would not want to pursue this line. I hope that the noble Lord, in his probing amendment, has received a sufficient reply.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I am quite baffled by my noble friend's explanation. I do not understand the clause. I sat here quietly to listen to the explanation in the hope that it might make it clear to me. Unfortunately, it has not; indeed, I am still quite confused. There was a time—I mentioned this on Second Reading—when doctors and dentists were not allowed to practise in the same building, but that went a long time ago.
I can understand that the provision for payment, and so on, might be different and that, for example, one might be on a different contract from the other. However, the wording in the Bill seems to me to be most specific. Subsection (2) says:
"A pilot scheme may not combine arrangements for the provision of personal medical services with arrangements for the provision of personal dental services".

1419
That appears to be very limiting, and unnecessarily so. I do not understand the reason for having that provision in the Bill. If it were to be removed from the legislation, surely there would at least be the option to consider whether in a given area it was suitable. However, when such a provision is in the Bill it specifically precludes any such consideration. That seems to me to be contrary to the purposes of the Bill as a whole; namely, to bring forward innovatory ideas.
Lord Rea: I agree with the noble Baroness. The Minister's explanation did not satisfy me; in fact, it increased my bewilderment rather than decreasing it. Surely it is less complicated to have the two types of practitioner working in a pilot scheme, and, although they are paid from different sources, to make the arrangements within that scheme, than it is to have two entirely separate pilot schemes. I am still at a loss to know why the provision is in the Bill. I wonder whether the Minister will agree to think about it before the next stage. If she will agree to do so, I shall not press the amendment.
Baroness Cumberlege: I believe both the noble Lord and my noble friend will agree that the contracts are very different. When one looks at how general practitioners work, it is clear that the vast majority in this country are wholly contracted to the NHS; that is where they choose to place their contract. However, when one looks at dentistry, the situation is very different. Many dentists amalgamate private practice and NHS practice: they spend some of their time doing one and some of their time practising the other. In no way do we want to stop co-operation between those two great professions. Indeed, I am sure that many schemes will come forward. However, we would find it very difficult to have a single contract with two professions which are organised and paid extremely differently. I can see that Members of the Committee are not satisfied with my reply. Therefore, I shall take the matter away and come back to it after further thought.
Lord Rea: In that case, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness McFarlane of Llandaff Baroness McFarlane of Llandaff had given notice of her intention to move Amendment No. 4:
Page 1, line 18, leave out subsection (3).
The noble Baroness said: I believe that this amendment falls in the light of the withdrawal of Amendment No. 2. I shall, therefore, not move the amendment.
[Amendment No. 4 not moved.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [Proposals for pilot schemes]:
Baroness Hayman Baroness Hayman moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 2, line 37, at end insert—
("( ) consult the appropriate local representative committee on the proposals, and").
The noble Baroness said: In moving the above amendment, I shall, with the leave of the Committee, speak also to Amendments Nos. 6, 8, 20, 21, 24, 32, 34,
1420
35, 37, 38, 39 and 41, but not, I trust, at great length. In view of the earlier discussion about the potential of trusts for initiating pilot schemes under the Bill, I begin by declaring a potential interest as I am the chairman of an acute trust in an area where primary care is in much need of support and where we might, indeed, be interested in submitting such a scheme.
The purpose of this group of amendments, large though it is, is all of a piece. The amendments seek to strengthen and clarify the procedures for consultation about pilot schemes at all stages. It must be said that within the Bill the details of what consultation is envisaged are skeletal in the extreme. In initiating such schemes, it is extremely important—and to be hoped—that they should have support and that at the very least those assessing them, including the Secretary of State, should know and take into account the views of local professional bodies, local public representatives and patients' representatives.
Perhaps I may clarify the group further. Amendments Nos. 5, 6 and 8 deal with the procedures for consultation when pilot schemes are proposed. Amendments Nos. 20 and 21 deal with the arrangements for consultation at the stage of review of pilot schemes, and Amendment No. 32 deals with the arrangements for consultation at the stage when the Secretary of State has a view to giving permanent approval to what has in the past been a pilot scheme. Amendments Nos. 34, 35, 37, 38, 39 and 41 deal with additional "pharmaceutical services" which will be provided under the Bill and seek to make explicit on the face of the legislation the arrangements for consultation, which are contained within the 1977 Act, both nationally and with local pharmacy committees. Finally, Amendment No. 24 deals with the provision of an annual report to Parliament by the Secretary of State on decisions taken under Clause 3 on,
"the findings of all reviews of pilot schemes carried out under [Clause 5]",
and on the "variation" and "termination" of pilot schemes under Clause 6.
We envisage substantial change; and we believe that it is essential that local people understand and are consulted about the changes to the basic structures of the NHS on which patients depend locally. We therefore propose that we consult with representatives of local patients including, but not exclusively with, community health councils.
Many organisations in different localities represent patients. Many organisations speak for patients with a specific illness or disability. It is important that health authorities consult the most appropriate organisations in their area. In some areas we have seen developments as regards public consultation; for example, in the use of citizens' juries. If such schemes were up and running, there is no reason why they should not be utilised in order to test the proposals.
The case for ensuring robust procedures for public consultation is strengthened by our earlier discussions. We are talking about serious innovations and the

1421
possibility of commercial organisations providing personal medical services for the first time. It becomes, therefore, more crucial that we secure the views of local people and patients' representatives on the proposals.
Amendments Nos. 5, 6, 21 and 32 ensure that local professional bodies for doctors and dentists are consulted. It is obvious that innovation and diversity in those areas are to be welcomed. That is the whole purpose of the Bill. On that basis the Bill's commitment to pilot schemes is welcome on this side of the Committee. It is equally important that we take an overall view and ensure that not only the opinions of the enthusiasts for a specific scheme in a small locality are made known but also that the wider views from professional organisations are taken into account.
Amendment No. 8 puts an obligation on health authorities to take account of the consultation with local authorities in their areas. In areas of primary care we are all aware how important it is to have proper consultation between local authorities and health authorities on the provision made for patients. As we see the blurring of the dividing line between health and social care, one provided by the local authority and the other by the health service, it makes even more important the liaison between those organisations and bodies. It is important that the local authority is given the opportunity to comment on pilot schemes, the review of pilot schemes and the possibility of making permanent those pilot schemes.
Amendments Nos. 34, 35, 37 to 39 and 41 bring in the provisions of the 1977 Act regarding consultation on changes to pharmacy schemes. I shall be interested to hear from the Minister why it was not felt necessary to put such local and national consultation on to the face of the Bill.
Amendment No. 24 deals with the annual report to Parliament. The Committee will be aware that we are encouraging diversity and innovation. Many different schemes up and down the country will be brought into effect. It is important that we are able to take an overall view of the effects of the legislation as regards those schemes which have gone ahead, those which have been amended, and those which have been made permanent. It is important to take a national perspective of the effect of the many different schemes introduced by different groups. I beg to move.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Alderdice: I speak to Amendments Nos. 5, 8 and 21. In so doing, I declare a potential interest were the legislation to be applied by order to Northern Ireland. I am the medical director of a health and social services trust in Belfast. It is that experience which leads me to speak on these matters.
I have drawn to the attention of the Minister that, in essence, Northern Ireland has had a pilot scheme of considerable proportions in that health and social services have been entirely integrated for more than two decades. In my judgment and that of most objective observers, the pilot scheme has proved most successful. There are two components of the scheme to which the
1422
amendments refer and to which I wish to draw the Committee's attention. There is tremendous co-operation between members of the medical profession, whether in hospital or in the community, and between consultants in hospitals and general practitioners. It seems clear that if pilot schemes are to be drawn up, consultation and co-operation among all medical professionals will be important. Hence it seems appropriate that if any pilot schemes are to go forward, there should be consultation with appropriate local representative committees. In the case of doctors it would be the medical committee; with regard to other professionals it would be the relevant committee.
However, we must also try to bring the community along with us. That seems obvious, but I draw the Committee's attention to the experience in Northern Ireland. It is a matter of continual surprise to those who visit us that social workers, doctors, nurses, psychologists and others work remarkably well together when they operate within the same organisation. In this part of the United Kingdom social services operate in local authorities whereas doctors and nurses and others operate separately.
That leads me to be strongly supportive of the notion that as we move, I trust, to greater co-operation between health service and social services professionals we should open the door in this part of the United Kingdom by encouraging—indeed requiring—consultation and co-operation with the relevant local authority. In particular one would wish to see the social services department of those authorities being consulted and thus encouraged to work more closely with health professionals.
In our experience progress in many fields has been remarkable. I refer in particular to the care of the mentally ill, those with learning disability, the elderly in the community, and children. In those areas co-operation between social services and health and social services and primary care has been remarkable and impressive. I ask the Minister to consider seriously encouraging and indeed requiring proper consultation and co-operation with local representative committees of doctors and other professionals, and especially with the relevant local authorities and their social services department.
Baroness Eccles of Moulton: There is a great tradition of consultation between health authorities and the local community. It is hard to believe that anything as serious as these pilot schemes could be contemplated without wide consultation between the first point in the process—the health authority, the local community and the bodies most affected by the proposals. Certainly in my experience the CHCs are most assiduous in requesting a consultation over what sometimes seems to us relatively minor service changes. It is rather surprising to me that it is so important to have this process featured so frequently on the face of the Bill in view of the practice I have experienced so far.
Another point is worth making. Once there are requirements in primary legislation, they place a very weighty sense of responsibility on those who are required to carry them out. That can sometimes have the

1423
effect of delaying very important changes and important progress in carrying out improvements to the way the health service is delivered. I should not like to think that the imposition of a very strict regime of consultation on those responsible could have an overly delaying effect. I should be very surprised if anywhere in the country changes of the sort that are proposed could possibly go ahead without thorough consultation and without that having to be on the face of the Bill.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I, too, think that this is rather a mixed idea. Consultation has become so accepted within the health service that I do not for one moment think that there would be any lack of consultation. However, given the way that the requirement is set out, in amendment after amendment, a very long and slow process is envisaged which could be quite self-defeating. The whole idea is to have people coming forward with innovative schemes for possible consideration as pilots and then to have them approved, as pilots only. I believe that full consultation would go on.
In introducing the amendment, the noble Baroness referred to changing local NHS structures and attached great weight to that. I did not envisage these powers as changing NHS structures, and I hope that they would not do so. I hope that NHS structures would continue to exist as they are and that these changes would be possible improvements, subject to the success of the pilot scheme, which might eventually at a later stage change NHS structures, but not at the pilot stage. There is a great tendency for people to give negative judgments in consultations.
The NIMBY theory that we see in planning, where everything is fine provided that it does not affect you, is very much the same in every field. Have Members of the Committee met anyone who wanted to do away with anything that they already had? However, if you suggest putting a mental home or a new fire station next to people, no one wants it. If it is there already, they do not want to lose it. It is very strange, but that is the human reaction. I believe that consultation would happen in any event.
Community health councils are very valuable bodies. Had I been asked 20 years ago, I should have said how appalling I thought they were. That was my belief 20 years ago. I thought that they were so destructive that the idea was hard to believe. I never saw them becoming the valuable bodies that they now are. I am very impressed by how well they work and how closely they follow every event that takes place. Therefore I agree with my noble friend Lady Eccles on community health councils.
The noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, spoke about greater co-operation between health and local authorities. I believe that is happening, and it is very good. However, the crunch point comes in relation to budgets. If the health budget were ever to be submerged in the local authority budget, then health would suffer. For that reason we must keep the two separate. But there should be consultation.
1424
Although I am mildly against most of these amendments, I am very much against Amendment No. 24 on grounds of sheer impracticality. I understood that the whole idea of the Bill was to bring forward not just the odd scheme here or there but lots of new ideas to be tried in all parts of the country. Amendment No. 24 insists on an annual report to Parliament on each decision taken, the findings of all reviews carried out, and,
"each variation and each termination".
In my experience, whenever people have to be notified of each variation, a variation can be the most minor thing imaginable. If the annual report to Parliament is to cover each variation and each termination—I shall not go through all the words, but they are all set down in the amendment—we shall have something like an encyclopaedia presented to Parliament every year if the Bill produces the number of innovative ideas that are being suggested. It is not a case of having to report the ones that are implemented; it is a matter of each decision, and why an idea was rejected. All the emphasis in the earlier part of our debate today was on encouraging people, nurses, pharmacists and others, to bring forward schemes. That will make any annual report bigger and bigger. As I say, it is not just a matter of schemes that are accepted; it is a matter of each decision. Amendment No. 24 is totally impractical. I oppose these amendments.
Lord Harmsworth: Perhaps the Minister can help the Committee on this point, following the remarks of the two previous speakers. Would flexibility be lost if these amendments were adopted? Would it not be the case that greater precision could be had as the Bill presently stands in so far as, presumably, the numbers and different types of consultee are large and very varied?
Baroness Masham of Ilion: In the past few years there has been a tremendous number of changes in the National Health Service. The public get confused. Therefore it is very wise to write in on the face of the Bill that there should be consultation with various bodies representing the public and different organisations representing the mentally ill, paraplegics and all sorts of different people. Perhaps there is no need for so many amendments; they could be consolidated. However, it is very important to have the goodwill of the community supporting any health issues. If people understand what is going on, they are far more likely to support it. I hope the Minister will be able to bring forward a proposal before the next stage of the Bill.
Baroness Cumberlege: This is a very large group of amendments. I shall take them in the order in which they appear in the Bill. The amendments would require health authorities and boards or, in some cases, the Secretary of State, to consult patients' representatives, the professions and local representative committees on proposals for pilots and reviews.
We welcome the objective behind the amendments. Primary care is the first port of call, as the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, said earlier, when medical or dental

1425
treatment is needed. If the provision in an area is to change, there should be an opportunity for people to make known their hopes and concerns. Similarly, it is essential that in taking forward this new approach to family health services we keep in close touch and take the views of health professionals, who know more than anyone how those services can best be delivered. In some cases, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, said, it may also be appropriate for there to be discussions with local authority services, such as housing and social services.
The legislation and the arrangements to enable us to achieve this co-operative approach are already in place. So far as concerns patient representation, it is the role of health authorities and boards to secure local services that meet the health needs of local people in the way they want. As my noble friends Lady Eccles and Lady Gardner said, that process must include appropriate consultation with patient organisations and we will want to satisfy ourselves when considering authorities' approach to piloting that that has been thoroughly undertaken. Similarly, we will expect health authorities to take account of patients' views in the input they provide to evaluations. Community health councils, which represent patients' interests, already have a right to be consulted on major service developments and this will ensure that their voice is heard in discussions on piloting and more permanent arrangements.
Turning to the input of the health professionals, it is worth reminding ourselves of the characteristics of the arrangements the Bill will allow. Those arrangements will not be imposed on anyone. They are for volunteers, and will only happen if GPs, dentists and trusts come forward with innovative proposals which promise improvements in services for local people.
More than that, we will want proposals to mesh reasonably well with other services provided locally. We do not want to push through piloting at the cost of destabilising existing services. That is precisely why we are committed to considering carefully the proposals for pilots that come forward and to proceeding cautiously. That is why the Bill provides for the Secretary of State to require health authorities and boards to carry out appropriate local consultation on proposals. So appropriate consultation will be central to the drawing up of proposals. It will also be crucial when we want to evaluate schemes. That is why the Bill explicitly gives those GPs and dentists involved in providing services under a pilot the right to contribute to the evaluation.
I hope that this demonstrates our commitment to a consultative approach. The amendments under discussion would not add to this, but they would risk imposing inflexible rules. The hallmark of our initiative is diversity. We need to ensure local consultation can be adapted to the types of scheme, and type of situation that will arise. We agree with my noble friend Lord Harmsworth that there is a danger that rigid consultation would inhibit flexibility. That is why we do not want prescription on the face of the Bill. We are setting up broadly based consultative groups to consider the detailed implementation arrangements for piloting
1426
and it will be for these to recommend how we can best ensure that the professions' and patients' voices are heard.
The noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, sought reassurance on consultation with local professional bodies. We are committed to working with representatives of the professions at national level on matters such as detailed operational arrangements and general criteria for evaluation of schemes. Locally we will expect health authorities, GPs and dentists to work together on proposals. Local representative committees have a role, particularly in considering the implications of the proposed pilot schemes on existing arrangements. They are already able to do that under their powers in the National Health Service Act 1977. We shall certainly want their views, both on proposals and on their impact when it comes to evaluation.
It is right that there should be appropriate parliamentary scrutiny of government policy on the NHS. It is equally right that there should be reporting to Parliament on the performance of the NHS and the use of public funds. There are well established mechanisms for doing this and we see one of them in operation today. Scrutiny of secondary legislation and the work of Select Committees also ensures that the Executive is properly accountable.
This amendment would take us much further than that. It would involve Parliament in the detail of NHS operations in an unprecedented way. We have no targets for the number of pilot schemes we intend to run. If the early pilots are successful, and there are sufficient volunteers, we may be looking at a fairly rapid expansion of schemes after a year or two. As my noble friend Lady Gardner said, we wonder whether it is appropriate that Parliament should have a report on each scheme and on each review. The same point applies with still greater force in relation to variations of schemes.
The Bill sets two conditions which must be met before the Secretary of State may make an order bringing Clause 17 into force, and with it the legal framework for permanent arrangements. The first is that he must have regard to reviews of pilot schemes which have been conducted. In other words, there are to be no permanent arrangements unless pilot schemes have been tested and found to be successful. The second is that the Secretary of State must be satisfied that it would be in the interests of the health service to set up permanent arrangements.
For something to be in the interests of the health service it seems plain that it must be in the interests of patients. That, after all, is the group that the NHS exists to serve. For something to be in the interests of the health service it must also be in the interests of the NHS as an organisation—by serving to build it up and by promoting the interests of its staff, its greatest asset. Those, surely, are the tests which the Secretary of State would have to satisfy if he were ever to be called to account for the way he had interpreted this provision. It follows from this that in reaching his decision on whether to make an order bringing Clause 17 into force the Secretary of State will have to take into account the interests of patients and of NHS staff. The ways in

1427
which he may do this are various and it would, again, be premature and risky to try to prescribe them now. I would rather have openness and a genuine commitment to the interests of the NHS than any number of ringing, declaratory statements in primary legislation. The true test of the Secretary of State's actions is already there, in the Bill. We do not believe that the amendments would add to it.
We agree with the noble Baroness that it is important for representatives of the providers of pharmaceutical services to be consulted about the directions to health authorities or boards for the provision of additional pharmaceutical services. However, this is already done in connection with any proposed changes to the pharmaceutical services regulations. In the Government's view this would apply equally to the directions envisaged in Clause 23. To put the matter beyond doubt, however, I am quite happy to give the noble Baroness an assurance that the same consultation process would apply to directions under Section 41A of the 1977 Act and Section 27A of the 1978 Act, as now applies to regulations made under Sections 41 and 27 at present.
I also understand the concerns of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, about the need for consultation at local level with persons or bodies representing potential providers of additional pharmaceutical services. Our belief is that sufficient consultation provisions are already contained within Section 43B of the NHS Act 1977 and its Scottish equivalent. This provides that before a health authority or board makes a determination about remuneration for any service, it shall consult either a prescribed body established to provide advice on such matters or an organisation appearing to the Secretary of State to be representative of persons to whose remuneration the determination would relate. Our belief is that, with national consultation on the services covered by the directions, this would provide a fair measure of discussion with representative bodies. While we would expect health authorities and boards to consult widely about the range of additional pharmaceutical services which their populations need, we do not believe that a specific provision for consulting the representative body of the potential providers is right. Consultation with representatives of the population served would be as important, if not more important. I invite the Committee to reject the amendments.
5 p.m.
Baroness Hayman: I thank the noble Baroness for those assurances, which are extremely helpful, regarding the changes in pharmacy services. I am not sure that Members of the Committee can have it both ways in arguing against putting provisions for consultation on the face of the Bill. Either the consultations would take place in all that detail anyway—in which case there is no need to put them on the face of the Bill and it would not take extra time—or they would not take place and if we had to put them in place there would be great unnecessary bureaucracy and extension of time. But Members of the Committee cannot argue both cases at the same time.
1428
My argument is that it is essential to put them on the face of the Bill. I believe that in the past few years we have seen a profound breakdown in trust in decision-making processes within the NHS. That has been a damaging breakdown because it has ended in an almost automatic opposition to any change, however justified it might be. That is because of a basic distrust of the motivation and direction of health policy. I fear that we could get into exactly the same situation here regarding the potential commercialisation of general practice in primary care through the introduction of commercial companies into providing it.
That is why I believe that it is important that, in the difficult process of rebuilding public confidence in decision-making processes, in taking people through the reasons why "not in my backyard" might not be the best response, the answer is not simply to plonk it in their backyard and tell them that they have to lump it. It is to argue one's case through, to listen to what people are saying and to be prepared to let them have a judgment on what you are saying.
Amendment No. 8 was specifically designed not to be inflexible, not to give a list of everyone who had to be consulted in every possible situation. Perhaps I am more suspicious than noble Baronesses opposite who spoke. We should not leave everything to the assumption that it would be done properly, but should give the commitment on the face of the Bill that consultation would be properly undertaken.
Much has been said about the "encyclopaedia" that would occur if Amendment No. 24 were accepted. Within the health service many professionals are deeply disillusioned, being lectured by politicians and managers about evidence-based medicine and how they should be initiating it but not seeing a great deal of evidence-based policy coming forward from people like ourselves. I believe that somebody should assess all the information in the annual report that we suggest in Amendment No. 24 and if that assessment, the evaluation of the experiments is done at the Department of Health—it would be inconceivable and irresponsible for it not to be done there—it ought to be shared nationally.
These are important issues and I fear that we may have to return to them at another point. I beg to leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 6 not moved.]
Baroness Robson of Kiddington Baroness Robson of Kiddington moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 2, line 46, at end insert ("and such matters shall include provision for the transfer of employment rights, including pension rights.").
The noble Baroness said: I am sure that everybody in this Chamber will agree with this amendment, including the noble Baroness the Minister, because it puts right an anomaly which has existed for some time; an anomaly whereby a nurse working in a general practice is not entitled to join the NHS superannuation scheme. Even though, over a number of years while working in the main part of the health service, she has contributed to

1429
the scheme she has to leave it. It is frozen and, if she wants to assure her pension at a later stage in her life, she has to start with a separate scheme.
That seems absolutely iniquitous, considering the fact that the general practitioners working in the service are entitled to be part of the NHS superannuation scheme. First of all, it is unfair that the nurses are discriminated against; but it might also militate against them wanting to join any of the new pilot schemes initiated by general practitioner services. It is important to treat all employees in the service in the same way.
If I had received somewhat earlier than about an hour before this debate started the new White Paper Primary Care: Delivering the Future, I should not have had to "speed read" in order to discover whether it said anything relevant to this amendment. On page 44, the Government admit that the situation was wrong and state:
"The Government therefore intends to open the NHS Pension Scheme to staff employed by GPs. The new arrangements will take effect from September 1997".
The paper goes on to say:
"The detail of how the Government intends to introduce these arrangements will he discussed with the profession's representatives".
That sounds very fine. It is in the White Paper. But I should still like this amendment to be on the face of the Bill to ensure that it is not forgotten over the coming months. If it is in the Bill, we should all feel satisfied that we were going to treat our nurses in exactly the same way that we treat the GPs in general practice.
In view of the statement in the White paper, I hope that the Minister will approve this amendment. I beg to move.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Rea: We very much endorse the views put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Robson. It would seem as though the Government have conceded the principle embodied in the amendment. As the noble Baroness said, if the White Paper had come out at the same time as the White Paper which preceded the Bill, many things would have been clearer. But I agree with her that the amendment should still go into the Bill. After all, it is only a White Paper. The arrangements are to take effect from September 1997 and there may—there will certainly—be a change of government by then. It is very likely that the Government will be run by my noble friends on this side of the Chamber, although of course sitting on the other side of the Chamber. Would not the Government like to see their successors also bound to follow these excellent suggestions in the White Paper?
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: Without arguing the last point—I hope that we shall still be sitting here at that time—I should like to support the principle of the amendment. But I must query its wording. When I have on my other hat and sitting as a member of an industrial tribunal, I am very aware of continuing employment regulations or transfer of undertakings regulations. But
1430
from what the noble Baroness said, these people are not currently employees of the health service because they work for a general practitioner. If that is so, and they are not currently in the health service, the transfer of undertakings would not cover them. It would only cover people who are currently National Health Service employees. It may be that different wording is needed. I feel that one needs to create continuity of employment within the National Health Service or something of that kind.
I strongly approve of the noble Baroness's point about pensions. In the case of my husband and myself, we each paid 6 per cent. of our earnings into the National Health Service pension scheme. Yet if I die, he does not receive a penny from my pension; but if he dies, I get 50 per cent. from his. I understand that that anomaly has now been corrected. But I felt very bitter about the situation for a number of years. I believe that it is very important to ensure that pension rights are protected. But we might have to go into the legal technicalities of the employment situation and I am not sure that these words would do what the noble Baroness intends.
Baroness McFarlane of Llandaff: I too support the intention of the amendment put forward by the noble Baroness. In any other setting this kind of anomaly would lead to inflexibility and lack of mobility in the workforce. That is the very thing that we want to try to avoid in the National Health Service. I support the amendment.
Baroness Cumberlege: My noble friend Lady Gardner is right. Practice nurses have been employed directly by GPs in the past and therefore the Government felt it right that the employers should take on the responsibility of the pension scheme. But we have listened to nurses and recognise their concerns about this particular issue. So the Government are committed to widening the NHS pension scheme to practice nurses.
I think the Committee will agree that we need to discuss the matter with the profession's representatives. It would not be right just to go ahead without having discussed it with them. Therefore, we feel that it would be premature to put this amendment on the face of the Bill.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: Of all the amendments that appear today on the Marshalled List, I felt that this was one to which the Government would agree. I can see the point in regard to nurses who are already outside the NHS scheme because they are working for a general practitioner; but I cannot understand why it is not possible to include this provision on the face of the Bill. I should very much like to see it included. I shall not press the matter today but will come back to it at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 8 to 10 not moved.]
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 [Approval of pilot schemes]:
Baroness Jay of Paddington Baroness Jay of Paddington moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 3, line 20, at end insert ("(if the pilot scheme is for personal medical services) ask the Medical Practices Committee for its assessment of the adequacy of medical services in the area likely to be affected by the proposed pilot scheme and its assessment of the likely effect of the pilot scheme on the adequacy of those services and, having taken into account those assessments, he shall").
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 11, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 13, 14, 31, 54 and 62 and to Clauses 10, 11 and 12. I hope that that is in order. It may sound somewhat sweeping but, as we are in Committee and as the amendments and those short clauses are relevant to the status and position of the Medical Practices Committee—which all the other amendments address—I suggest that it may be appropriate to discuss them all together.
As the Committee will recall, when we spoke about this issue on Second Reading many Members on different sides of the Chamber raised concerns about the Medical Practices Committee and the position it would have under the new pilot schemes. The Minister, in reply, explained to us at that stage that she had already talked at length to members of the Medical Practices Committee and discussed its position in relation to the Bill or in relation to the pilots and further permanent schemes. At that stage she was not able to report any conclusion to the Chamber. However, she did say that she would be putting forward proposals in the light of those discussions. I hope that today the noble Baroness will be able to give us some report on the progress of those discussions and to say that these amendments as they stand will provide a stimulus to some of the solutions which we on this side of the Chamber and others who support the amendments feel may deal with the problem.
The purpose of the amendments is to ensure that the Medical Practices Committee continues to fulfil its statutory responsibility to ensure that as far as possible primary care services delivered by general practitioners are equitably distributed within a national framework. As I said, several noble Lords at Second Reading raised the concern that, by establishing the pilot schemes in the way that they are presently drafted in the Bill, that would mean that the Medical Practices Committee was effectively bypassed. There is anxiety in that committee that provisions in the Bill are designed to sideline it and make it irrelevant to the processes it justifiably and rightly feels are important.
I remind the Committee that at present the Medical Practices Committee, as a national body, has the duty which it has had since the NHS was instituted in 1948 to assess whether various areas are served by an adequate number of GPs; to exercise its discretionary power to refuse, where they are so served; and to ensure that as many areas as possible are so served. That is an essential function in the struggle to improve equity of access in the health service.
As I and other noble Lords who spoke at Second Reading described, there are large inequalities in the provision of services throughout the country. For example, it has been calculated that 700 doctors would
1432
have to move to the north from the south of England to provide a reasonably equitable distribution of general practitioners across the country. And, as I said in an earlier debate this afternoon on new Clause 1 and as my noble friend Lady Hayman emphasised in relation to the consultation process, we are fearful that some of the new proposals that could come forward under the pilot schemes, particularly those introducing commercial interests into primary care, may serve only to increase services for the better off and do nothing to improve overall equity, and indeed may work against it.
It is therefore extremely important that in a more deregulated system which this Bill opens up, the Medical Practices Committee should retain its power to act on a national overview of needs. Amendments Nos. 11 and 14 are specifically designed to ensure that that takes place. I prefer those two amendments to Amendment No. 13, which I feel is less stringent in its understanding and less precise in its demands on the regulations that the Medical Practices Committee should carry out.
The British Medical Association, as well as the Medical Practices Committee, is concerned that under the Bill as it stands there will be two different workforce planning systems—one where, through the Secretary of State, with prior agreement of health authorities and boards, decisions are made in relation to doctors entering pilot schemes and another where the Medical Practices Committee retains the remit for determining recruitment or replacement of GPs who are working under the present contract. Both the British Medical Association and the Medical Practices Committee feel that it is inappropriate, given the long experience of the Medical Practices Committee and its extremely extensive national database, that they should not be involved in assessing and agreeing to the involvement of GPs in the pilot that will take place under a rather different scheme.
The question also arises as to whether the way in which the approval of the pilots is obtained may adversely affect the ability of existing practices to recruit additional or replacement partners. That again relates to the matter of equity. It is suggested, for example, that if a local health authority agrees to pilots which are attractive to general practitioners, that may unfairly diminish the possibility of other GPs practising in that area gaining new partners or replacing old partners in a way which maintains the equity of the service.
The point overall is that there should not be two different systems for assessing and evaluating the way in which doctors are contracted and may be employed under the pilot schemes to provide services; that we have in existence the effective Medical Practices Committee which makes that provision possible within a national framework, and to make it more complicated by having a dual system may simply exacerbate inequities and do little to make it easier to establish a national picture of the way in which the workforce should be agreed.
There are also complications—referred to in the clauses we feel should not stand part of the Bill—in relation to why it is that the dual arrangements for

1433
contracting general practitioners and making them part of the pilots will have an inhibiting effect on the ways in which the general system is agreed. For example, under Clause 10, GPs entering into pilot arrangements are required to leave the medical list under Part II of the NHS Act. They would not be allowed to work under both parts of the Act or to hold lists of patients under both parts. If that was deleted it would mean there had to be special arrangements, as Clause 10 allows, for medical practitioners who provide medical services in pilot schemes to be separately looked at and assessed. They could stay on the medical list. They would be part of the original system and would not be required to resign.
Clause 11 is another area where the same problem arises in relation to treating general practitioners within a pilot scheme in a different way from the system nationally understood and already working which is arranged through the Medical Practices Committee. For example, if Amendment No. 31 is accepted, a doctor who was included in the medical list under Clause 17 (if that were amended) would be included on the local list by the Medical Practices Committee. If the pilot scheme failed, the doctor would still be on the list and would not need to be given preferential treatment to return to the list.
In other words—I know this sounds extremely complicated—the basic point is to maintain one unified system for dealing with all general practice and for allowing all general practitioners to be assessed under an effective and well managed national scheme which takes into account both local and national needs and is able under the scheme which has been working since 1948 to make assessments on the basis of long experience and with an invaluable database. Indeed, if Clause 12 was deleted, the difference between "personal medical services" and "general medical services" would be effectively eliminated by bringing all the personal medical services into the control exercised by the Medical Practices Committee (that would be under Amendment No. 31) and this clause would also not be necessary.
This is an extremely complicated area and there may well be different points to which the Minister will want to reply when she responds to this group of amendments. However, the basic point is that in the Medical Practices Committee there is a well organised and long established national body which has a statutory responsibility. It is unclear from the discussion we had at Second Reading why its remit should not be extended to cover pilot schemes. It seems important that the MPC should be included. If it is not to be included—if it is to be excluded—that should be made more specific.
At Second Reading the Minister said that she and other colleagues were engaged in discussions with the Medical Practices Committee. Noble Lords will recall that in many debates in your Lordships' House we have spoken of the need to maintain a national framework for the National Health Service. We have also expressed fears from these Benches about recent fragmentation. In her reply to the Second Reading debate when speaking about the Medical Practices Committee the Minister was
1434
specific. At col. 649 of the Official Report of 3rd December 1996 she said that she wished to ensure that a coherent local and national approach was applied to new proposals. I hope she will accept that these are in a sense probing amendments, because we want to establish the role of the Medical Practices Committee will have in future, but we are trying to seek to ensure a continuing role for the MPC and we are seeking to ensure that the aspiration which the Minister expressed at Second Reading for a coherent local and national approach becomes a reality. I beg to move.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Alderdice: In supporting Amendment No. 11, I should like also to refer to Amendment No. 13, which stands in my name, Amendment No. 31 and the proposition that Clauses 10, 11 and 12 be excluded from the Bill. The concern that I represent on behalf of my colleagues on these Benches is not merely about the continued existence and satisfactory functioning of the Medical Practices Committee, now almost at its 50th anniversary, but a much more fundamental one about whether a health service continues to be a truly national health service.
We strongly welcome the notion that local sensitivity and local creativity might be expressed in the development of pilot schemes in order that new ideas come forward which might be properly evaluated and then taken up by practices in other parts of the country. That is exactly what one would want to see in best practice. However, if things work out as described by the Minister and there is, in her words earlier today, "a rapid expansion of schemes", it is much more likely that, rather than a number of well constructed pilot schemes being embarked upon, reviewed, adopted widely and continuing to develop and to benefit a national health service, we shall see a rapid expansion of very different pilot schemes throughout the country which will lead to a fragmentation of service. Unless there are bodies which will properly monitor what is going on we shall undoubtedly see our health service no longer national but even more different and less coherent than is the case at present.
In supporting these amendments we express our serious concern that if the excellent idea of pilot schemes is not properly monitored, it could be the beginning of an even further fragmentation of the National Health Service, which is one of the most prized commodities and institutions of our country.
Baroness Eccles of Moulton: In considering the proposals put forward with regard to the Medical Practices Committee it is important that we accept the current situation in terms of equity of service across the country. The noble Baroness, Lady Jay, said that a certain number of GPs will have to move from the south to the north in order to achieve that. The Medical Practices Committee has only the power of veto and therefore it seems difficult to accept that pilot schemes going forward under the form of approvals we have already discussed will necessarily exacerbate the inequities. Unless it is given a try it will be difficult to know whether this is the right was forward.

1435
Another point is worth making. It has been said that the Medical Practices Committee is the repository of a great deal of knowledge about GPs' qualifications and their records of service. It is not the only repository of that information. The committees that sit to appoint GPs also have that information. I should have thought that GPs themselves, when applying for a new practice or for a first practice, would be well able to supply that information.
I do not think it will be at all helpful to the success of the pilot schemes if they are not established in the most unfettered way possible.
Baroness Cumberlege: The Government are committed to fairness in the distribution of services. That was a fundamental principle underpinning Primary Care: the Future and restated in the White Paper Choice and Opportunity. It is because we want to ensure equity that we presented the Bill.
The existing mechanisms have worked well in many places in the past but not everywhere. We need to be extremely careful about imposing constraints on decisions concerning pilots. The Government believe that pilot schemes should improve fairness both within health authority areas and between health authorities. That will be a key consideration when pilots are considered and before approval is given. We wish to have full discussions with the profession and others before determining how this can best be achieved. We have already started these discussions with the chairman of the Medical Practices Committee and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, Stephen Dorrell, has written to the General Medical Services Committee. It would be wrong and potentially damaging to sensible development to pre-empt these discussions in the way the amendments seek to do.
Perhaps I may now deal with each specific amendment. Amendment No. 11 would require the Secretary of State to involve the Medical Practices Committee in the decision to approve a pilot. In particular it would place a requirement on the Secretary of State to obtain an assessment from the Medical Practices Committee about the adequacy of medical services in the area likely to be affected by the scheme and the likely effects of the pilot scheme on the adequacy of those services. Assessments would have to be taken into account in reaching a decision.
The amendment refers to medical services and not to adequacy of general medical practitioners. An important distinction needs to be made here. The distribution of general medical practitioners, by using negative direction, is quite a different role from that of assessing the health needs of populations and planning service provision to meet them. The former is about the input of a specific resource, albeit a crucial one, while the latter goes much wider, involving other considerations, including the part other professions have to play in the provision of family doctor services.
Health authorities have to assess the health needs of their populations and to judge the nature and extent of services required across primary and secondary care. They must make judgments about the balance between
1436
primary and secondary care and the priority to be afforded to particular services to best suit the needs of patients. They must also make judgments about the inputs into services—human and financial—balanced against outcomes. It is for this reason that health authorities will produce workforce plans for general medical services which are consulted on locally.
Plans will take account of all professional groups—medical practitioners, nurses, professions supplementary to medicine and administrative and clerical staff. These plans will be consequential upon careful planning of services to meet needs and will inform decisions about recruitment, education, training and development of the workforce. It is crucial to success that health authorities' plans for services and consequential workforce plans form a single point of reference to inform other decisions. That is what we intend to achieve.
Decisions by the Medical Practices Committee and decisions by the Secretary of State on pilots must be fully informed by these plans. This amendment would mean that the Medical Practices Committee not only second-guessed health authorities' decisions about the health needs of its population and the services required, but also the Secretary of State in the process of approving pilots. It would result in needless bureaucracy and take decisions about services further away from the patient.
As I have tried to make clear, I do understand the concerns which have been expressed about pilots leading to an inequitable distribution of services. I too would be concerned. But this will not be the case. Areas of high need will be targeted where perhaps the more traditional ways of providing general medical services has not delivered the quality or range of services required.
Pilots will cover a diverse range of services provided through a variety of professions. While for the most part they will be led by a family doctor, the emphasis will be on team working with other professionals—nurses, physiotherapists and others. The aim is to provide an environment which encourages innovation and flexibility.
In general medical services, resources have tended to follow general practitioners who themselves are not distributed entirely equitably in relation to population. The distribution of GPs per head of population varies across the country. Some health authorities have average patient list sizes which are 50 per cent. higher than in others. In some parts of the country expenditure is almost two-thirds higher than elsewhere. Recently published papers and articles have pointed to similar inequities. While it is probable that this may be overstating the case, because we need to develop better measures of need for general medical services, we do accept that there is an underlying problem.
It is not surprising that such inequities have occurred. As the noble Lord, Lord Walton, said in the Second Reading debate, the Medical Practices Committee has had considerable experience in ensuring an even distribution of general medical practitioners. But this is based on the distribution of GP principals through negative direction. In other words, while they can only

1437
prevent a doctor practising in over-doctored areas they cannot stimulate a doctor to work in an area. The provision of services in areas which are less desirable are best achieved if health authorities, GPs and other service providers are together able to explore ways in which services might be provided. Pilot schemes will provide new opportunities for such development.
The noble Lord, Lord Walton, also said that the Medical Practices Committee is the only body which has a detailed overview of the national GP manpower situation at any one time. But this understates the position. National manpower planning is a key task of the Department of Health. It is an essential component of financial planning and distribution of resources and providing the trained workforce for the future. Information is collected from health authorities at regular intervals to feed into this work, which is highly detailed and requires particular skills and abilities. This is a proper role for the department, which will continue to be taken forward. It is for this reason we have asked health authorities to undertake workforce planning for general medical services so that local needs and difficulties can be better understood and fed into the national picture.
This is not the role of the Medical Practices Committee nor would it be appropriate that it should be. The committee comprises of nine people, working part-time, dealing with applications from doctors to join medical lists. I am not questioning their expertise in this area; but it is wrong to believe that their role goes wider or indeed that it would be appropriate for it to be so widened. I repeat, we shall be discussing with the Medical Practices Committee ways in which its knowledge and expertise might usefully feed into the work on national workforce planning in collaboration with the profession and others who have an interest in this area.
As I said, we are committed to achieving equity and this is fundamental to our aims. We have already taken forward work within the department which has looked at the distribution of resources for general medical services. We need to develop this work further, in particular how to measure need and discuss with those who have an interest.
Amendment No. 13 is intended to complement the earlier amendment giving an inappropriate role, we believe, to the Medical Practices Committee. The amendment would mean that the Secretary of State may not approve proposals for a pilot scheme for personal medical services unless he is satisfied that the proposals have proper regard to the needs of other areas and the assessments made by the Medical Practices Committee. Thus, the Medical Practices Committee would be required to make an assessment of the impact of any pilot schemes for personal medical services on areas other than those in which the pilot is intending to operate.
As I hope I have already made clear, it is health authorities who must judge the health needs of their populations and determine how services should be provided to best meet those needs. Pilot schemes will be reflected in any plans, as will the more traditional
1438
ways of providing family doctor services. I expect health authorities to consult locally with LMCs and other interested groups about their plans for general medical services and the effect of any pilots on those services. Similarly, health authorities will be expected to consult the Medical Practices Committee about their plans for general medical services so that a coherent view can be formed over the number of general medical practitioners required to deliver services. These discussions will include any plans for pilots to enable the Medical Practices Committee to take these into account when carrying out its statutory role in relation to general medical services. It is totally inappropriate for the Secretary of State to have to seek any reassurances from the MPC about pilots.
Amendment No. 14 also seeks to ensure that, in approving pilot schemes, the Secretary of State has to have paid due regard to an assessment made by the MPC about the need for those services. In making such an assessment, the MPC would assess whether or not there is already adequate provision of general medical services in the area likely to be affected by the pilot scheme compared with the needs of other areas. That assessment would then have largely to determine whether or not the Secretary of State approved the scheme.
As with earlier amendments, this places a responsibility on the MPC well beyond its current statutory duty and provides for it to second-guess health authorities in their strategic, financial and human resource planning role. Perhaps even more importantly, it would fetter the discretion of the Secretary of State. In accepting such amendments he would no longer be responding to the clear messages received from the profession, public and health service managers through our listening exercise that the biggest need which currently exists is for primary care services to be provided in flexible ways to meet the needs of patients and the professionals working within those services. Instead we would be tying ourselves into a bureaucratic process, which would confound robust and clear decision-making processes and confuse lines of accountability and responsibility. Therefore, we do not support this amendment.
Amendment No. 31 is connected to earlier amendments which attempted to provide a role for the MPC in agreeing pilot schemes for personal medical services. This amendment is intended to provide a process whereby any permanent schemes which followed from successful pilots were considered by the MPC.
However, the amendment is defective. Decisions currently made by the MPC are concerned with the distribution of doctors providing general medical services and only that.
That is carried out by a process of negative direction whereby the committee does not admit a doctor to a health authority's list if the area is over-doctored.
The second part of this amendment confuses two quite different processes, which are in place for two different types of service provision: the process of admission to a list by the MPC so that a doctor can

1439
provide general medical services in a particular area, and decisions made by health authorities to provide personal medical services which do not involve admitting a doctor to a list. We cannot therefore agree to such an amendment.
Amendments Nos. 54 and 62 deal with our revised appointment procedures for doctors providing general medical services. These new procedures are required to remove anomalies and provide a sound basis for GP appointments. In particular, it is intended to reduce bureaucracy. These amendments would leave in place Section 30 of the Act, which requires the names of all doctors wishing to provide general medical services to be submitted to the Medical Practices Committee for approval and inclusion in the health authority's list. The section would remain alongside the clause we have drafted as a replacement. This confuses the roles and responsibilities of the MPC and those of health authorities. I am sure that that cannot have been the intention. I hope that these amendments will not be pursued by the Committee.
I should like to address the Question that Clause 10 stand part. This clause will ensure that medical practitioners who provide care for their patients under pilot schemes may not also provide services under the national arrangements. This should bring clarity to the arrangements under which services are provided for patients. It is important that GPs and health authorities are clear as to whether the services provided by a particular GP are provided under one arrangement or the other. To allow a mix and match arrangement, with a patient receiving some treatment under one system and other treatment under the other, could lead to confusion.
However, the clause provides for regulations to allow exceptions to this rule. There may be circumstances where such exceptions are sensible and necessary. For example, it may be necessary to allow GPs who provide a specialist obstetric service to the patients of other GPs to provide such a service to patients of medical practitioners working in pilot schemes. It is hoped that your Lordships will agree that Clause 10 should stand part of the Bill.
Clause 11 underpins the voluntary approach to pilot arrangements by ensuring that GPs can be given the right to transfer to the medical list and to the existing national arrangements if and when they leave pilot schemes. When a doctor sets himself up in general practice he is setting himself up in business and he takes the commitments that go with that. Whether he is a single-handed GP or a partner in a practice, he will have premises that need to be paid for, staff to pay and overheads to bear. GPs who work in pilot schemes will need the security of knowing that they can, if they want, transfer from pilots to the national arrangements with ease. It is particularly important that they should not have to go through the whole application procedure as if they were not yet practising GPs, especially since in most cases they are likely to bring lists of patients with them.
The clause provides that before a health authority or board makes a pilot scheme the Secretary of State will publish criteria dealing with such transfer arrangements.
1440
He will decide whether a particular GP should be given preferential treatment if, once he has ceased to provide services under a pilot scheme, he makes an application to a health authority or board asking for his name to be included in the health authority's or board's medical list. Naturally the GP would need to meet the eligibility criteria in force for the time being, for example those on age. The Government believe that this is a central plank of the Bill, and we ask the Committee to support the clause.
Clause 12 is important in safeguarding the quality of the services that patients receive when they are treated by a deputising GP. It will enable regulations to be made which will set out clearly the liabilities and obligations of GPs working in the existing system in circumstances where doctors working in a pilot either act as deputies for them or else use them as deputies. The situations that arise under the current arrangements are provided for by regulations made under the 1977 Act. Until now there has been only one arrangement around which to regulate. Under the pilots doctors will work under contracts that will differ from place to place and from circumstance to circumstance. Their arrangements will vary from the national terms of service. However, it is important that arrangements regarding liabilities and obligations are consistent and fair. This is the aim of these provisions. This clause will provide for a seamless primary care medical service where deputising services are used. I invite your Lordships to agree that Clause 12 should stand part of the Bill.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: I am grateful to the Minister for her detailed response to this series of amendments and the Question whether the clauses under discussion should stand part of the Bill. I am tempted to follow the response of my noble friend Lady Hayman to the earlier debate on Amendment No. 5 and the related group of amendments. This afternoon there have been a number of double arguments that attempt to make the same point. For example, in this debate each time we try to put in place a safeguard to protect standards, or in this case to protect the way in which general practice is developed in different parts of the country, we are told that it is needless bureaucracy. However, we are always assured that detailed planning will be carried out and enormously elaborate systems put in place before any pilot scheme is agreed, let alone determined to be a permanent change of service.
The more one discusses the Bill, the more it appears that what we are considering are good intentions rather than safeguards or exact provisions on the face of the Bill. In response to this group of amendments the noble Baroness referred to the Government's commitment to equity as being a basic plank of the Bill, but when in this and in an earlier debate on another group of amendments we have tried to ensure that equity is explicitly required on the face of the Bill, that is denied. In her response to this series of amendments the noble Baroness speaks of the central role of health authorities and their ability to assess local needs in a much more significant way than the Medical Practices Committee, which would look at the matter on the basis of only GP services. We are led to suppose that GPs are not

1441
absolutely central and that a wider provision of services is looked for under the Bill. That was exactly our understanding. We understood that the idea behind the Bill was to improve and increase the flexibility of local services. However, earlier this afternoon when the noble Baroness, Lady McFarlane, sought to introduce an amendment to enable other professionals to become the lead proposers of alternative arrangements under pilot schemes, it was rejected by the Government.
As we progress further with the Bill, it is difficult to understand precisely who are the principal instigators of the new schemes, who is to have the controlling influence in ensuring that they provide equity, together with the other principles that we are told are essential to the changes, and who is to assess the overall standards and framework within which we have always believed that the National Health Service operates.
The noble Baroness in her reply also said that she and her honourable and right honourable friends in another place, the Minister for Health and the Secretary of State, continued to discuss with the Medical Practices Committee the contribution that it could make under the new pilot schemes. However, if I were a member of the MPC, on the basis of the remarks of the Minister I would be extremely pessimistic.
The British Medical Association is also in tune with the Medical Practices Committee in agreeing that there should be a means of looking at the overall doctor workforce, whether or not they are regarded as central to the new pilot schemes. I agree with that. I believe that in the interests of equity—which the Minister emphasises is the primary aim of the Bill—there must be an organisation to do precisely that. I also agree with the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice—I am sorry that he feels that I have not emphasised it sufficiently—that the main principle behind all of these amendments is to try to avoid further fragmentation of the National Health Service. All of us are concerned about that. Within the Medical Practices Committee there is a national body that has some remit to try to prevent that fragmentation. However, from what the Minister has said—she has left the door slightly open—the Government do not see the role and overall perspective of the workforce as being particularly important in the development of the new pilot schemes. As we have feared, this is all about deregulation rather than the equitable organisation of services.
I am disappointed by the Minister's reply, but at this stage I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6 p.m.
Baroness Jay of Paddington Baroness Jay of Paddington moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 3, line 24, at end insert—
("( ) The Secretary of State may not approve proposals for a pilot scheme unless he is satisfied that the scheme meets nationally agreed criteria for the quality of services provided to patients.").
The noble Baroness said: I beg to move Amendment No. 12 and speak also to Amendments Nos. 18, 22 and 23. All four amendments are designed to ensure that the
1442
pilot schemes for new primary care are not simply approved and evaluated on the basis of a described local need or comparative cost but will also meet nationally agreed criteria to ensure that the care that is offered is of the highest national standard of practice. To an extent, this is a continuation of the debate on the previous group of amendments. It is an attempt to prevent the fragmentation and disorganisation of services simply in the interests of diversity.
If this amendment is accepted we hope that agreed criteria are published before the machinery of establishing the pilots gets under way. On these Benches we accept that the increased flexibility in local practice arrangements may well extend the types of primary care services to be offered, something which we have already discussed this afternoon. For example, we discussed under earlier amendments that we welcomed the possibility that nurses and others would have a wider responsibility in health care promotion. Indeed, if the amendments of the noble Baroness, Lady McFarlane, had been accepted we would have liked to see them as lead partners in pilot schemes, but we are also concerned to ensure that increased diversity does not lead to reduced overall quality.
At Second Reading the Minister emphasised the need for quality controls in these pilots—also mentioned in the White Paper Choice and Opportunity, which spoke of promoting consistently high quality across the country. In introducing the Bill at Second Reading the Minister said, at col. 591 of the Official Report that local flexibility should be balanced by national safeguards for patients and practitioners. However, she did seem to see this more in terms of the professional relationship between individuals and their general practitioners rather than protecting or, even more importantly, promoting the quality of services to be offered under the new schemes.
I realise that the question of evaluating and standardising quality in medical care is extremely complex and very delicate. Doctors rightly resist what they now call recipe book clinical practice. However, one of the positive changes in the health service in the recent past has been the overall professional acceptance that evidence-based practice, peer group review and the general bench-marking techniques widely used in business and industry can play a role in health care. My noble friend Baroness Hayman has already referred to the scepticism which has grown up in some places within the health service about the fact that they are constantly asked to deliver evidence-based care without any reference to evidence-based policy. That lack of evidence-based policy has been very apparent in the fact that the Government have so far resisted developing what I suppose one might call NHS gold standards for the quality of service.
It is true that today we have the almost unenforceable aspirations of the Patients Charter, but there also seems to be very little official enthusiasm for producing and agreeing national workable criteria for assessing high quality care; criteria which presumably should be based (at least in the first instance) on comparative research and measuring outcomes. This Bill is a golden opportunity to initiate such research and agree such a

1443
system. Basically our concern, which has been expressed in several of the groups of amendments, is that unless the pilot schemes are developed and evaluated within a national framework of standards then more may simply mean worse. Clearly evaluation of these schemes, once they have been established, is absolutely crucial and we would hope to see that done on the same kind of previously published criteria as those which are agreed for setting up the pilots in the first place.
At the Second Reading debate the Minister said that the evaluation process would be determined following discussions with professions, health authorities, academic units and patients. However, it seemed to leave a great deal open in terms of the different types of review processes which might be applied to different schemes and it seems to us important that those proposing pilot schemes should know that there are at least some nationally agreed criteria which will be involved in determining the review process. Such criteria could again be very similar to those which were agreed on a national basis for setting up a pilot in the first place. They might, indeed, include all of the things about quality of outcome as well as responsiveness to local needs, which would be strengthened if the amendments which my noble friend Baroness Hayman introduced about local consultation had been agreed as well as, of course, cost effectiveness.
When the noble Baroness introduced the Bill at Second Reading she gave assurances about maintaining standards, as did the White Paper which preceded the Bill. We are back to this question of goodwill and assumptions about people's intentions which I referred to when I was summing up on the previous group of amendments. Assurances have been given but the Bill as it stands really gives no indication as to how maintaining standards will be achieved. The purpose of Amendment No. 12, and the others in this group, is to enable a national system of criteria to be developed against which pilots can be established and tested in terms of the broad overall quality of services to patients. I beg to move.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: We on these Benches support this amendment. There is really nothing much to be said after that introduction by the noble Baroness, Lady Jay. However, we are concerned, as are most people, that although the idea of flexibility in the type of scheme that is introduced locally is appealing and basically good, the pilot schemes should be based on a national standard which everybody can understand and judge them against.
We suffer already, and have done for some time, from a lack of national standards of care over the whole of the National Health Service. In many parts of the country the standards vary enormously. We do not want the flexibility of the pilot schemes to add to that difference. We want them based on carefully considered national standards so that we are certain that they are an improvement on what is happening at the moment and
1444
that they will not endanger some of the undoubted benefits which we get from the present primary health care system.
Lord Winston: I should like to echo what my noble friend Baroness Jay said about the Government missing what is essentially a very important opportunity.
It must be recognised that general practice is among the most difficult of all medical specialties. That may seem a very odd thing to say, but this must be considered in the context of the general practitioner seeing a huge range of different medical problems and consequently having to spot among those medical problems the very occasional problem; for example, the one cancer of the colon that he might see once every three or four years in a typical general practice. He must be alert to such eventualities. That makes his responsibility a very grave one.
It seems to me that one of the key issues which has already been mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, is the very great variability in the United Kingdom in the standards of general practice. Of course, most general practitioners in this country are excellent. They are among the best available anywhere in the world, but we do have a great variability of practice. Certainly many of us who work in the cities see that in the inner city areas general practice is often very poorly conducted. It troubles me that we might see a worsening of the position unless there is vigorous inspection of these pilot schemes. After all, this is not a new idea. It was this Government who instituted the notion of peer review, for example, of fertility units, which has been an important part of the inspectorate system, in order to make sure that adequate patient care and quality is maintained.
One of the aspects that concern me is that a general practitioner must ensure that he keeps a proper watching brief over a patient after referral to a hospital rather than simply losing that patient, that he maintains proper family care afterwards, and to ensure that he is actually referring the patient to the right place to get the best treatment. These are often omissions widely seen in general practice in this country. He must also make certain that there is adequate referral communication. I saw a patient only a week ago in my unit who had the most complex medical history with some five or six abdominal operations, and the referral letter simply said, "Please see and advise", with no recognition that the patient had this complex history which bore extreme elements to the nature of the referral.
Another issue is that when GPs decide to do investigations they do them adequately and at the right time. I have just seen a member of my family who, as it happened, turned up at my hospital, having been sent by a GP with the wrong forms, for a series of investigations. The investigations were not going to be done because they were on the wrong forms. However, those investigations were done over 10 days ago. As far as I know, the GP has never bothered to pick up the results, so he cannot act on them. It fortunately happens that that relative has a medical person in the family who can sort that out.
Finally, one of the issues that is troublesome is the variability in primary care medicine of how GPs pick up or attend post-graduate education. That is an area which

1445
could also be monitored in these schemes. It is important that the Government consider the implications of the amendment to see whether something could be done about that area.
Baroness Cumberlege: We are committed to introducing pilots only where there are demonstrable potential gains to be made in the quality of services delivered. As indicated in the document Primary Care: the Future and in the White Paper Primary Care: Delivering the Future, published today, we have identified the need to take action to bring up the standards of service in some areas to meet the overall high standard of primary care. The introduction of this Bill is one arm of our strategy to do this.
We are currently setting up arrangements to underpin our commitment to ensuring that pilots set up under this legislation deliver service improvements. We wish to discuss with the professions, with representatives of academic units and patients and with health authorities how standards might be identified in schemes for approval and subsequent evaluation of how successfully the aims and objectives of the pilots have been met. We do not underestimate the difficulties in doing this or the importance of getting it right. We will be establishing a representative group nationally to take this forward and have written out today on this matter to individuals. This will include discussion of what criteria should govern the approval of pilots.
We do not believe that in advance of that detailed work we can on the face of this legislation circumscribe the Secretary of State's decision-making powers in quite the way these amendments imply. We do not know to what extent the group will be able to come up with criteria which might be applied across the board in looking at prospective pilots. Pilots will inevitably vary considerably and it may be quite difficult to find criteria which are both generally applicable and sufficiently challenging to provide the assurances that both we and the noble Lords believe are needed. We have within the Bill in Clause 2 the powers for the Secretary of State to direct health authorities on what matters must be dealt with and what information included in preparing the proposals for any scheme.
We have within Clause 5 the powers for the Secretary of State to determine what procedures on any review should apply. It is within these powers that we intend to reflect the results of the representative national group's conclusions on both scheme specific and general criteria on the quality of services to be provided to patients. It could be positively harmful to prescribe a common procedure and criteria if this meant producing standards which met only the lowest common denominator and distracted attention from the vital quality and procedural issues specific to the pilot in question.
We would therefore ask the noble Baroness to withdraw Amendment No. 12 and not to move Amendment No. 23, as we think their intentions are better served by the provisions already within the Bill.
In looking at Amendment No. 18 we acknowledge the need to be open about pilots and the criteria on which reviews will be based, but I am not sure that this
1446
amendment is the best way to achieve this. Clause 4(4) is about providing useful information to local people about services being provided under schemes. What local people what to know is what services they can get where. Mixing up this information with details of what is being piloted and what the criteria for evaluation will be could cause confusion rather than be helpful.
I can assure the Committee that the criteria against which pilot schemes will be evaluated will be established prior to the scheme being implemented. In the main these are likely to be to what extent the pilot scheme has met the service objectives set out in the proposal. But there may be others. We certainly have no reason to keep the criteria secret. We want the evaluation to be open, thorough and credible.
Perhaps I may take up the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Winston, about inner city areas. We had a discussion about that earlier this afternoon. It is because we are so concerned about those areas that we have sought new ways of providing services. In the past we have been convinced that it is the rigidity of the NHS Acts that has prevented some imaginative proposals. If we do not improve primary care in those difficult and challenging areas, the Bill, if it becomes an Act, will have failed.
Training is an issue that has been taken up today in the White Paper. I hope that when the noble Lord has had a chance to see it he will come back to me if he feels that there are issues that need further exploration.
6.15 p.m.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: I am grateful to the Minister for that helpful and in some ways encouraging reply. Especially encouraging is the news she gave of the establishment of a national body to look at national criteria in relation to those pilots. We of course look forward to hearing a progress report on how that group develops. If it is possible, perhaps before the Bill leaves another place, for those criteria to be explained to Members of another place, I am sure that that will give us greater confidence about the exact terms by which the pilots will be judged. If that proposal is within the White Paper, I am afraid that I must plead, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, earlier, that speed reading has not enabled me to find it.
I would say also—this is something which my noble friend Lord Rea mentioned in an earlier debate—that it seems a little unhelpful, to put it at its mildest, that the White Paper, which is relevant to the progress and understanding of the Bill, has been produced only today when we have reached Committee stage. If it had been published with the earlier White Paper, some of the things which we have said—the Minister has rightly responded by saying that some of the points have already been met—would not have been necessary, and we should not have wasted everyone's time in making them. However, that does not affect the status of this group of amendments, to which, as I said, there was an encouraging reply from the Minister. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 13 and 14 not moved.]
Lord Rea Lord Rea moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 3, line 28, after ("authority") insert ("and the applying qualified person").
The noble Lord said: The amendment asks that reasons be given by the Secretary of State for his decision to modify or reject a pilot scheme. As drafted, the Bill allows the Secretary of State to come to a decision about the suitability of a proposal for a pilot scheme without stating the reasons for his decision. We agree with the Royal College of Nursing that for reasons of openness it would be beneficial for those involved in drawing up a proposal to know why that proposal had been rejected or modified by the Secretary of state.
In the case of a rejection, that might allow a suitably modified proposal to be put forward which would be acceptable. We should like the Minister to expand a little on whether the Secretary of State will give full reasons for decisions taken in order to guide the people who put forward the proposal. I beg to move.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: We support the amendment. It is important in particular that where a pilot scheme has been rejected, the proposers should discover the real reason for rejection so as to be able to decide whether to reapply.
Baroness Cumberlege: In a spirit of helpfulness—the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, is not in her place! I shall be helpful when she returns to the Chamber.
The proposals for pilot schemes will be put to the Secretary of State by health authorities and boards. Where the proposal has been made by a provider who is a "qualified person" within the meaning of the Bill—a GP, general dental practitioner or NHS trust—the health authority must put it forward. The reason for the health authority or board involvement is to encourage discussion of proposals between authorities and potential providers and to ensure that the proposal is set out in a format which is in line with the Secretary of State's directions.
It seems sensible to maintain the link between health authorities or boards and the Secretary of State once the decision on an application has been taken. But the reasons for this are above all practical. The Secretary of State may need to take decisions on a large number of proposals. In the case of some proposals, there may be a significant number of potential providers of services. If the Secretary of State has to inform each of them in turn of his decision we could end up with a huge mailing exercise at the Department of Health, unnecessary bureaucracy and greater potential for mistakes. Some providers could end up finding out about the decision before others, which is clearly a state of affairs to avoid. Far better for the decision to be passed to the relevant health authority or board and for it then to have to inform the providers of the outcome as a matter of priority. Where the proposal has been approved, this will be just the first of many contacts between the health authority or board and providers as they will then need to finalise contracts and other operational details.
I hope that the Committee will agree that we should avoid needless centralisation of the piloting process. The arrangements set out in the Bill will secure this and also
1448
provide a quick and efficient way of disseminating information about approvals of pilots. We believe that the amendment could threaten this, and I hope that the noble Baroness and the noble Lord will not press it.
Lord Rea: I listened carefully to the Minister, but do not believe that she has covered the point which the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, and I made about the bodies whose proposals are rejected. Surely, it is very important for them to know in some detail why they have been rejected. That can be transmitted to them by the health authority concerned but I believe that the provision should be included in the Bill so that applicants for pilot schemes know why their proposals have not found favour.
Baroness Cumberlege: The noble Lord is right in saying that we want a great deal of discussion between the health authorities and those proposing pilots. We do not believe that putting forward a proposal for a pilot scheme is like an exam which is marked and is either right or wrong. We believe that there will be a long iterative process with a number of pilots. Certain aspects will need to be tested out, particularly if the Secretary of State has questions or seeks further information.
The situation is ongoing in terms of agreeing the schemes and therefore we believe that it would be unhelpful to have to say at a single point that a decision must be made and put in writing. The discussion may well go on for longer.
Lord Rea: The Minister's last remark was helpful. I am speaking as one who has put forward proposals for research projects which have been rejected. I know that sometimes the body which has been approached helpfully gives referees' reports showing why they did not believe the project was worth funding.
However, I believe that the Minister has said enough and we shall look at that carefully. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 16 not moved.]
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 [Making of pilot schemes]:
Baroness Hayman Baroness Hayman moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 3, line 44, leave out ("implementing proposals") and insert ("receiving notification of approval from the Secretary of State").
The noble Baroness said: This is a straightforward amendment. It follows from the previous amendments in that it deals with the procedure when the Secretary of State has approved proposals for a pilot scheme. As the Bill stands, the details of the scheme are to be published only upon its implementation. If the schemes are to be successful, as we would all wish, and as they change the nature of the services and the way in which they are provided, we believe that it will be sensible if the details of the approved scheme are made immediately available to those who might be affected by it rather than on implementation.
There is always a timelag in such matters until the public and the patients become used to changed services. It will help no one if a scheme is up and

1449
running before its details are made known locally. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that such details are published as soon as the health authority receives approval from the Secretary of State. Following from what the Minister said earlier, I assume that will be when the scheme and its details have been decided and will no longer be for negotiation between the parties. The appropriate point for details to be published locally is when the scheme has been firmed up and not later at the point of implementation. I beg to move.
Baroness Cumberlege: Clause 4(4) is intended to ensure that the system is open and above board, which all noble Lords believe to be right. What people need is good quality information about the services that are available now. We drafted the clause with this in mind. Our aim is that people should be able to find out about the scheme and would be aware of the system they were being treated under and the service that they could expect.
We have two difficulties with the amendment set against these criteria. First, it is possible that the Secretary of State may give approval for a scheme six months or more before it is implemented. Yet at this point some of the contractual details of schemes may still have to be tied down through negotiations between health authorities and boards and providers. There could also be changes to a scheme in the period between approval and implementation. Most such changes will require the Secretary of State's agreement, but authorities may be permitted to make some themselves by agreement with providers. It would not be very helpful if information about schemes was published and then had to be revised, even before the scheme was operational. Generally, people want up-to-date information about the services they can obtain now, rather than about long-term plans for the future. Putting information that may change into the public domain ahead of time could lead to confusion. For that reason, we cannot support the amendment.
Baroness Hayman: I am grateful for the Minister's comments and I understand the difficulties that she outlined. However, a balance must be struck. There will be some approved schemes which are about to be implemented by the Secretary of State and I do not believe that it will be helpful for their details to be held back necessarily to the date of implementation. As I said previously, there is a timelag during which patients become used to a new pattern of services. It might be helpful if in guidance given to health authorities it was stressed that the earliest point at which a scheme is definite in its detail is the appropriate time at which to make that known, in the sense that there should be no constraint to wait until implementation if there is a possibility of doing that sensibly earlier.
6.30 p.m.
Baroness Cumberlege: That is a suggestion that we should wish to consider carefully. But it must be seen
1450
in the context of all the consultation which we discussed earlier in the day. My experience of the National Health Service is that nothing is ever secret.
Baroness Hayman: It is not always totally clear. There are often many versions of what is going on. But on the basis of what the Minister said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 18 not moved.]
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clause 5 [Reviews of pilot schemes]:
Baroness Robson of Kiddington Baroness Robson of Kiddington moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 4, line 3, at end insert ("not less than eighteen months and not more than three years after the date on which the pilot scheme comes into operation.").
The noble Baroness said: I shall not take long in moving this amendment. It is a necessary amendment because it deals with two aspects of a pilot scheme. It seeks to provide that no pilot scheme should be implemented for less than 18 months before the evaluation takes place.
The primary health care service is extremely complicated and it is necessary that a scheme should run for at least 18 months before it is evaluated. But it is necessary also that it does not run for ever and ever without being evaluated. That is why the amendment provides a maximum of three years.
We feel that it is necessary to have this amendment in the Bill because of what we consider were the unfortunate circumstances in relation to the pilot scheme for the nursery voucher scheme. We do not want that treatment to face the people who are working with the implementation of the pilot scheme. I hope that the Minister will be able to grant us the approval of this amendment that we seek. I beg to move.
Lord Rea: I support the amendment. By time limiting the pilot schemes, the amendment would stimulate the evaluation team to clarify the criteria on which the evaluation of the scheme would be based. I believe that the evaluation should be in the minds of those who are running the scheme right from the inception of the scheme, even before it starts. To have a set limit for the scheme helps very much to concentrate the minds of those who are to carry out the evaluation. Therefore, I support the amendment.
Lord Harmsworth: Does the Minister agree that when a large number of pilot schemes are set in place, it may well be possible to evaluate some of those which fall into a pattern before the 18 months have expired?
Baroness Cumberlege: We are committed to thorough reviews of pilot schemes because we wish to ensure that we learn from experience and establish what works well and what works less well. However, the variety of schemes that we hope will emerge makes it difficult to prescribe a fixed timescale for the operation and evaluation of all schemes—a point made by my noble friend Lord Harmsworth. We believe that, as we

1451
learn from experience, we shall not have to go through the full panoply of a thorough evaluation with every single scheme if it follows the model of one that has already been successful.
Some schemes are likely to become established more quickly than others and will therefore be ready for evaluation more quickly. More ambitious schemes may need a longer period to settle down and demonstrate their effectiveness. We must ensure that schemes are given enough time to become established before they are evaluated so that we can get a good idea of how the pilot scheme is performing. The Secretary of State will set a timescale for each pilot that he approves with that in mind. Therefore, there will be flexibility, which is important, but also we shall ensure that each scheme has a regular plan to it.
It is likely that the vast majority of pilot schemes will be evaluated within the timescale specified in this amendment, but there may be exceptional cases where the timescale will be inappropriate. For example, where several of the individual GPs providing services under the pilot change, perhaps because of personal circumstances unrelated to their work, more time may be needed for the pilot to become established and to demonstrate its effectiveness. A three-year review could be premature and perhaps of little value. Conversely, it is possible that some pilots involving very small changes in existing arrangements could be ready for an earlier evaluation.
Therefore, we agree with the timescales set out in the amendment as general rules but we believe that it would restrict unnecessarily our initiative if we were to try to set those timescales on the face of the Bill. Therefore, we do not support the amendment.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: I thank the Minister for that reply. I am glad that she believes in the principle. I thought that I was providing sufficient flexibility by specifying between 18 months and three years. I want to prevent a pilot scheme running on indefinitely without evaluation. The noble Baroness gave an example which may need a time extension, but that could almost be considered to be a new pilot scheme because the people involved would be different. Therefore, I should like to see a maximum of three years.
I can see also that when a scheme is running—and some pilot schemes are already in existence—there may be similar pilot schemes which are not quite the same thing but would need perhaps a shorter evaluation timescale. However, I am determined that pilot schemes should not run indefinitely. I shall read what the Minister said and perhaps return to this matter at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 20 to 23 not moved.]
Clause 5 agreed to.
Clause 6 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 24 not moved.]
Clauses 7 to 9 agreed to.
Clause 10 [Leaving medical lists]:
Baroness Hayman Baroness Hayman moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 5, line 27, leave out ("not").
The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment, I seek clarification in relation to Clause 10, which I must admit I found rather difficult to understand. As I read it, personal medical services are those provided under pilot schemes and schemes that then become permanent schemes under this legislation. General medical services are provided by family practitioners under Part II of the 1977 Act or Part II of the 1978 Act.
Clause 10 appears to separate those two functions and to ensure that a medical practitioner who is undertaking a pilot scheme under this Bill should not be a medical practitioner who is receiving remuneration under Part II of the 1977 Act. I seek clarification as to why someone who is providing GMS under the 1977 Act should be debarred from providing also PMS, which may be different and involve different services, under this Bill.
I should also like to probe a little into the exceptional circumstances, or the "prescribed" circumstances, where there would be exceptions to the rule. There is a reference in Clause 10(1) to there being "prescribed" circumstances and their extent, to the effect that there might be exceptions from the barring of people performing both sorts of medical services, both personal and general. I should be most grateful to receive some clarification from the Minister about what those circumstances might be. I beg to move.
Lord Alderdice: We certainly support the amendment. We have some concern because we want to see some creativity; indeed, we want to see people coming forward with pilot schemes. However, we are worried that this may actually deter general practitioners because it will be asking them to move out from a circumstance to which they are accustomed and with which, in many cases, they are very happy, into a very unknown field. We do not feel that is a particularly helpful approach. We heard the earlier advice from the Minister in that regard, but we are still rather puzzled as to why there is the need to split things in quite this way. As I said, we support the amendment.
Baroness Cumberlege: We believe that the national arrangements which have formed the link between GPs and the NHS have served us well. They date mainly from 1948. But our wide-ranging discussion on primary care has also made it clear that the services these arrangements deliver—for some patient groups and in some areas—are not always of the highest quality. It has also become clear that we need to consider new ways of addressing those problems.
The proposals set out in Choice and Opportunity are not forcing GPs to move into a completely different system. What we are proposing is that where GPs wish to test out a wide range of contractual options to see what benefits they will bring, this legislation will allow that to happen. The overriding aim must be to deliver high quality primary care from well-motivated professionals.

1453
Considerable flexibility is required in this legislation to provide the scope to enable the potentially wide variety of arrangements that are likely to be proposed to take place. Part II of the 1977 Act does not provide the flexibility to allow these broad ranging changes to be put into effect. The Bill will provide a base which will enable a wide and diverse range of arrangements to be brought about.
It is important that it is clear under which arrangements GPs provide services. They should provide them either under the existing Part II arrangements or under the proposed pilot arrangements. It would be a bureaucratic nightmare to have GPs who provided services under both arrangements. It would be difficult for GPs and health authorities and potentially confusing for patients. What we want is a coherent and seamless service from our GPs. This amendment would not further that aim. Because a GP who takes part in the new arrangements will no longer be participating in the Part II arrangements they no longer need to be on the health authorities' medical list, the list being a list of the GPs in each area who are providing Part II services.
We made a commitment in Choice and Opportunity that GPs should not be disadvantaged by taking part in the new arrangements. We have also made a firm and solid undertaking that participation should be voluntary. These pledges are backed up by the provisions in Clause 11 which will allow for a GP to transfer to a medical list where a pilot ends for any reason, and which we shall debate in due course.
The MPC will of course continue to have an important role, particularly in relation to existing arrangements where it will continue to approve vacancies. But one of the reasons for the pilots is to improve the distribution of GPs which remains uneven because the MPC only has powers of negative direction. Both locally and nationally we need to discuss with the professions what a fair distribution of services would be. Then Part II general practice, pilots and permanent schemes will all need to develop in a way which is consistent with fairness. We shall be discussing with the GMSC how best to achieve that aim. I hope that that is a sufficient explanation for the noble Baroness.
6.45 p.m.
Baroness Hayman: I am grateful to the Minister. We are on technical territory here. The Minister talked about the bureaucratic implications as regards the people involved in both sets of services. There are also implications about the funding streams, together with difficulties about the two sets of funding. I listened to the Minister's response, but I have residual concerns that we may in fact be stifling innovation—a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice. There are potential circumstances in which someone who is delivering most of his services as mainstream services under GMS might still wish to be involved in an innovative project, which was not a full time one, and in providing services that were very specific and more innovatory. However, I shall read with care what the Minister said on that point. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 10 agreed to.
Clause 11 agreed to.
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Clause 12 [Liabilities and obligations in relation to deputies]:
Lord Rea Lord Rea moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 6, line 17, leave out ("perform") and insert ("provide").
The noble Lord said: In moving the amendment, I shall, with the leave of the Committee, speak also to Amendment No. 27. The amendment seeks simply to improve the Bill by inserting rather more appropriate language. I feel that the use of the word "perform" is wrong because of its double meaning. We are more inclined to think of a performance as involving someone who is executing some tricks in front of an audience or, indeed, putting on a musical recital. I believe that the word "provide" is better; in fact, the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary defines it as to "supply or furnish" whereas the word "perform" refers to something corning into effect or being "the agent of" something. While speaking to the two amendments, I should point out that there is another part of the Bill—namely, Clause 11(4)—where the word "performing" appears. I also believe that that word should be altered to "providing". With those short remarks, I beg to move.
Baroness Cumberlege: GMS services are delivered through the personal relationship of the GP with the patients on his list. It is the GP who must see to it that GMS are delivered and he remains responsible for this delivery. However, when a GMS (or Part II GP) engages a deputy and, for example, that deputy is on the health authority's medical list, then that deputy, through the existing regulations, will be responsible for his own acts and omissions under the terms of service for doctors. That is because as a professional in his own right of the same standing as the GP he deputises for, it is right and reasonable for him to take responsibility for his acts and omissions while he provides services under a deputising arrangement.
Under the proposed pilot arrangements, the word "provide" has a very specific meaning. A pilot GP might enter into an agreement with a health authority to "provide" services. This means that while the GP may enter into an agreement to "provide" services, he may then actually arrange for the performance of these services by someone else. That is likely to happen when, for example, the GP has agreed to provide chiropody services or the services that are provided by an NHS trust. It then becomes another person's duty to provide those services.
If the word "perform" were replaced by "provide" it would suggest that the regulations would be about more than merely deputising for a pilot scheme GP. It would suggest that the Part II GP would be taking on all of the pilot scheme GP's obligations to provide services under his contract with the health authority (including, for example, arranging for subcontracting of the services to be provided by the pilot scheme GP), whereas the clause

1455
as currently drafted is only about deputising for the actual performance of medical duties. It is therefore right to talk about "perform" rather than "provide".
Lord Rea: I thank the noble Baroness for her explanation. I do not like the word "perform". I would almost prefer the word "undertake". However, that does not appear in the amendment before us. I undertake to read the noble Baroness's remarks and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 27 and 28 not moved.]
Clause 12 agreed to.
Clause 21 agreed to.
Clause 13 [NHS contracts]:
[Amendment No. 29 not moved.]
Lord Rea Lord Rea moved Amendment No. 30:
Page 7, line 21, after ("circumstances") insert ("including cessation at that person's request").
The noble Lord said: The amendment seeks clarification. We note that all the pilot schemes are to be conducted on a voluntary basis. However, having agreed to participate it is not clear whether the person concerned has to carry on to the conclusion of the pilot scheme, or whether for personal or other reasons he can leave the scheme before it is finished. In the prescribed circumstances when a person ceases to be such a body, the amendment includes the personal decision of such a person. I beg to move.
Baroness Cumberlege: The effect of Clause 13 is to give providers of personal medical and dental services a choice of whether the contracts they make with health authorities and boards should be ordinary contracts, or NHS contracts. The advantage of the latter is that they provide for dispute resolution by the Secretary of State, thus avoiding time-consuming and expensive recourse to the courts.
Under existing law only so-called "health service bodies" are eligible to make NHS contracts for certain purposes. Clause 13 enables providers to apply to the Secretary of State to become health service bodies. They will then be able to make NHS contracts. The whole arrangement is purely voluntary. We believe that NHS contracts are a sensible, cost-effective arrangement and will encourage GPs, dentists and NHS trusts to opt for them. But there will be no compulsion.
If achieving health service body status is entirely voluntary, then leaving it should also be at the discretion of the person concerned. There would be no point in allowing choice in one respect but not in the other. The purpose of Clause 13(8), to which this amendment relates, is to enable the Secretary of State to make regulations setting out arrangements by which someone can stop being a health service body in certain circumstances. It stands to reason that a request by a volunteer health service body to stop being one is a circumstance that will be covered. The regulations will simply set out the arrangements for this to happen, including dealing with any obligations under existing NHS contracts. Just as a
1456
GP will need to approach the Secretary of State to become a health service body, so he will need to approach him again to stop being one.
The freedom for GPs and dentists to stop being health service bodies is inherent in the logic of this clause. We will certainly provide for it. But we see no need to spell it out on the face of the Bill. I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My noble friend stated that there would be provision to meet any obligations. If someone seeks to withdraw, is there any cover to ensure that others are not left with heavy obligations afterwards?
Baroness Cumberlege: That is an issue which would have to be explored when the pilot scheme was being proposed.
Lord Rea: I thank the noble Baroness for her detailed answer to a small amendment. I believe that the answer justified the moving of the amendment. We now have something to go on. We shall read Hansard in order fully to understand the answer and its implications. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 13 agreed to.
Clauses 14 to 16 agreed to.
Clause 22 agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 31 and 32 not moved.]
Baroness Hayman Baroness Hayman moved Amendment No. 33:
Page 11, line 35, at end insert ("and unless the order has been approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.").
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 33, I speak also to Amendment No. 56, which is consequential upon it.
At Second Reading of the Bill, the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, flagged up the issue of the procedures to be used when certain provisions of the Bill came into force. She argued that it would be necessary to have positive rather than negative procedures in order to ensure parliamentary debate. The amendment seeks to ensure that there has to be positive agreement to provisions under Clause 17 of the Bill.
Clause 17 provides for permanent schemes to be set up. Bringing that provision into force will change permanently the way in which primary health care is delivered.
We believe that the change is important enough to merit another parliamentary debate before schemes are made permanent. It would provide an opportunity for full parliamentary scrutiny of whether the pilot schemes so far evaluated had worked well—that is a question to which the Secretary of State must have regard—and, if so, whether it would be,
"in the interests of any part of the health service to bring this [new] section into force".
I beg to move.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: The Minister will know that I support the amendment because I mentioned

1457
the issue at Second Reading. Before a scheme becomes a permanent part of the National Health Service, in the sense that the schemes can be implemented in other parts of the country, it is important that Parliament should debate the matter. It should not go through on a negative instrument. I prefer it to be an affirmative instrument. I support the amendment.
Baroness Cumberlege: The aim of these amendments is to introduce a more rigorous parliamentary test for the commencement order triggering the provisions on permanent arrangements which may follow piloting.
I understand the thinking behind this—the wish to ensure that permanent arrangements are not introduced until pilot schemes have been properly tested and found to be successful. However, I believe firmly that the safeguards necessary to secure this are already in place in the Bill.
First, there is the voluntary nature of both piloting and permanent arrangements, set out explicitly on the face of the Bill in several places. If pilots fail to deliver, nobody will be able to force GPs and dentists to enter either further pilots of the same kind, or permanent arrangements based on them. They will continue to provide services under existing arrangements. Nor will trusts or other providers be able to take over from them. The skills and experience to provide primary care services rest with GPs and dentists who provide those services at the moment.
Secondly, there is our commitment to a thorough review of pilot schemes, involving the relevant health authorities or boards and providers of services. This will not be an attempt to gloss over difficulties but a frank analysis. We will learn from them. If they show that certain schemes are ineffective, we will not repeat them. We will certainly not attempt to give them the status of permanent arrangements.
Finally, there are the conditions attached to the commencement of permanent arrangements which already appear in the Bill. The two tests that are set are crucial: no permanent arrangements without taking account of the views of pilot schemes—which is why thorough and honest evaluation is so important—and no such arrangements unless the Secretary of State is satisfied that these would be in the interests of the NHS. That surely must be the acid test of any scheme. No scheme that does not work well, and work for patients, could be interpreted as being in the interests of the health service. In today's climate it would be a foolhardy Secretary of State who attempted to introduce permanent arrangements which did not demonstrably meet those strict criteria.
So we are not trying to mask some masterplan with a thin layer of piloting. If schemes work, we will allow them to develop to the point where the Secretary of State's direct approval is not necessary and permanent arrangements can be introduced. If they do not work, we will not hesitate to drop them. I hope that I have demonstrated that the Bill backs that approach with the force of law. The further hurdle proposed by
1458
these amendments—affirmative resolution—would be without parallel in current NHS legislation. It would also be unnecessary. I hope that the noble Baroness will agree to withdraw the amendment.
7 p.m.
Baroness Hayman: I am grateful for the Minister's comments. I understand that the Secretary of State has to take into account what is in the interests of any part of the health service. However, after the experience of the past seven years at least, we have to conclude that what is in the interests of the health service can be a matter of both dispute and honest disagreement. I am rather saddened that on the issue of the annual report and on this amendment there seems to be a reluctance to have parliamentary scrutiny of what are quite far-ranging changes to the structure of primary care. However, I will read the Minister's remarks. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 17 agreed to.
Clauses 18 to 20 agreed to.
Clause 23 [Provision of additional pharmaceutical services]:
[Amendments Nos. 34 and 35 not moved.]
Baroness Masham of Ilion Baroness Masham of Ilion moved Amendment No. 36:
Page 19, line 3. at end insert—
("( ) In giving any directions under this section the Secretary of State shall ensure that there is no diminution in the range of additional pharmaceutical services in an area.").
The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment and speaking to Amendment No. 40, I seek to improve the present situation for patients. The Government have for some time been encouraging a primary healthcare-led NHS, as all noble Lords will know. Patients are now staying in hospital usually for far shorter periods of time than they did a few years ago and many more are being treated for serious conditions in the community.
It has been brought to my attention by the Tissue Viability Society, with which I have been associated in a voluntary capacity since its inception, that there is a problem, which these amendments seek to rectify.
In recent years there has been an explosion in the range of dressings available to manage wounds. There has also been much research activity to determine the efficacy of many of these products. Many of the modern products have been demonstrated to be considerably more effective than the traditional dressings such as gauze.
One area where there has been a great improvement is in the management of cavity wounds. Cavity wounds are deep wounds which may be caused by drainage of an abscess or a surgical operation or be chronic wounds such as pressure sores. They take time to heal and can cause much discomfort to the sufferer. Several products have been developed specifically for this type of wound.

1459
They are easier to apply and much less painful to remove than ribbon gauze, the traditional type of dressing, as well as being more effective.
As patients are discharged earlier from hospital, more and more patients with cavity wounds are being cared for by district nurses. Unfortunately, their task is made more difficult by the fact that there are no modern dressings for cavity wounds available on general practitioner prescriptions.
At a recent meeting between the Surgical Dressings Manufacturers' Association and the drug tariff team from the Department of Health, it was announced that there was no need for cavity wound dressings to be added to the drug tariff as district nurses are already obtaining them.
Anecdotal evidence supports the view that many district nurses do manage to obtain cavity wound dressings. However, that is said to be through "doing swaps" with their local pharmacists. That is, a prescription is obtained for a product listed on the drug tariff and that is exchanged for a different dressing of equal price value. Although it is purely for the good of the patient, it is an illegal practice. The Department of Health could be seen to be encouraging such actions. At present there is insufficient evidence to determine the extent of the practice; however, it was found that about one-fifth of dressings used in cavity wounds were obtained by illegal means. There are also problems in obtaining a selection of bandages for the treatment of leg ulcers in the community.
I am sure that the Minister and the Committee will agree with me that the most cost-effective procedure is getting the patient back to full health as quickly as possible. The greatest expense is in nurses' time treating patients whose wounds or ulcers will not heal. Different patients respond to different medication and dressings. There needs to be a choice and the drug tariff needs to be kept up to date as better and more effective products come on the market.
I hope that the Committee will support this amendment, and the one for Scotland, which ensures that the Secretary of State sees that there is no difference in the range of pharmaceutical products to treat patients wherever they may be, either in hospital or in the community. I beg to move.
Lord Rea: The Minister will have heard the plea of the noble Baroness, Lady Masham. I hope that she will be able to say that not only will there be no diminution in the range of additional pharmaceutical services but that there will in fact be an augmentation along the lines suggested. I shall be interested to hear the Minister's response.
Baroness McFarlane of Llandaff: I support the noble Baroness, Lady Masham. It has been my experience in the past that district nurses have been unable to obtain the specific kinds of dressings in the community that have been used in hospital for the patient. When a patient is discharged he or she sometimes has a temporary supply from the hospital;
1460
then in the interest of cost that source dries up and they are unable to obtain suitable dressings in the community. I support the amendment.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I was very interested to hear the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Masham. However, I was slightly puzzled. I could not quite see how the amendment reflected what she said. That slightly confused me. For example, it refers to no diminution in "additional" pharmaceutical services. That seemed difficult to follow. I wondered whether the noble Baroness meant pharmaceutical suppliers rather than services. I was a little lost. I completely agree with her about the need for special dressings and so on. However, I was not sure whether this amendment quite said what she intended. I shall be interested to hear the Minister's reply.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: The Government favour a wider role for pharmacists. We have, for example, introduced a scheme whereby pharmacists provide advice on the safe keeping and correct administration of medicines to residential homes and to nursing homes. Community pharmacists are also among those who take part in syringe and needle exchange schemes for drug misusers.
We also support local management of services. Health authorities are best placed to fit services to the needs of their population. Some services provided by pharmacists will be required throughout all geographical areas of all health authorities. Others may be a priority in some areas only. Syringe and needle exchange is a good example of this type of service--it is only in some places that there is a need for it.
Therefore, while we support an increase in the choice of services which can be purchased from pharmacists, we believe that health authorities should, wherever possible, be left to decide which services are needed in their area. They should not be obliged to spend public money on a service which is not a priority for their patients. The proposed amendment would hinder health authorities from tailoring services to local needs, and therefore the Government cannot support it.
I understand the noble Baroness's serious concerns about the availability of dressings on GP prescription. I can reassure her that the list of dressings available through this route can be extended without new legislation. I understand that community trusts already provide dressings through the district nurses whom they employ and that there is no legislative reason for the amendment. It would not help in any way to add the amendment to the Bill. I hope that the Committee will reject it.
Baroness Masham of Ilion: I thank all Members of the Committee who have spoken. I wish first to say to the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, that I am in the hands of the excellent Clerks to the House of Lords. Perhaps they will consider what she said and correct the wording so that I may bring it back at the next stage.
I wish to say to the Minister that I am told that the drug tariff list needs to be changed because district nurses are obtaining some of these products and dressings through the back way, illegally. I hope that the

1461
Minister will take the matter back and discuss it with her department. I can put her in touch with the Tissue Viability Association and we shall see what happens at the next stage. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.15 p.m.
[Amendments Nos. 37 to 41 not moved.]
Clause 23 agreed to.
Clause 24 [Terms and conditions etc.]:
Baroness Jay of Paddington Baroness Jay of Paddington moved Amendment No. 42:
Page 20, line 9, at end insert—
("( ) In deciding on any standards relating to quality of service to be included in the terms or conditions specified in any direction, the Secretary of State shall, in relation to any additional pharmaceutical service included in the direction, have regard to any standards for that service promulgated by the professional body representing pharmacists.").
The noble Baroness said: I apologise for my loss of voice. Amendment No. 42 deals again with the issue of trying to establish consistent national and local standards of quality for pilot schemes, this time in the pharmaceutical area.
We have debated the whole issue in relation to several amendments this afternoon in general terms and we return now to the issue of pharmacists and pharmaceutical standards. The Royal Pharmaceutical Society, which promulgates and maintains national standards for the profession at a personal and professional level, is concerned that there should be national minimum standards for any additional pharmaceutical service which is provided under one of the pilot schemes.
As the registering body for pharmacists, the society already publishes standards for many aspects of professional practice with which all registered pharmacists are required to comply. But there is concern that the Bill as drafted at present would appear to permit a health authority to contract for a specific additional pharmaceutical service with different contractors and to have different standards for the services provided by those individual contractors.
The Royal Pharmaceutical Society has pointed out that already in existing legislation there is a recognition of the standards which it promulgates and which are the guiding force in the professional bodies. They would like to see an amendment such as the one now before the Committee which would provide similar criteria for the additional pharmaceutical services which could be provided under the pilot schemes.
The NHS pharmaceutical services regulations for 1992 require a pharmacist whose name is on the pharmaceutical list to provide pharmaceutical services and exercise any professional judgment in connection with the provision of such services in conformity with the standards generally accepted in the pharmaceutical profession.
This amendment, if it were adopted, would simply extend that understanding about the standards that are generally accepted to the pharmacy services which could be provided under pilot schemes. Indeed, it does not require any new development of criteria, as we discussed earlier in the afternoon, but simply the extension of existing criteria to the new pilot schemes. I beg to move.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: We fully understand the aim of this amendment in seeking to ensure that directions given to health authorities do not cut across professional standards already extant within the pharmacy profession. However, a Secretary of State in making such directions would need to consider any existing code of practice before making any such decision and would not wish to undermine professional standards in the way contemplated. We therefore think this amendment is not necessary. While we want health authorities to have flexibility in how much of a service to purchase and the features it contains, I can assure the noble Baroness that professional standards—for example, those laid down by the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain—would certainly be something that the Secretary of State would wish to consider when issuing directions for additional pharmaceutical services. I therefore hope that the noble Baroness will be able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. Again, it seems to fall into the category which I described earlier as being good intentions rather than precise regulation and understanding on the face of the Bill. However, I understand that she says that nothing which is to be regarded as a successful pilot scheme would go outside the understandings about professional standards that have already been agreed. For the moment at least, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Jay of Paddington Baroness Jay of Paddington moved Amendment No. 43:
Page 20, line 12, at end insert ("hut may not add the name of any person to such a list whose name is not on any such list").
The noble Baroness said: With Amendment No. 43, I wish to speak to Amendments Nos. 44, 45, 46,49 and 50. All the amendments are designed to improve the mechanics of maintaining quality at a local level in new pharmaceutical provisions under the pilot schemes and to ensure that pharmacists, who, as we have agreed in several debates this afternoon, play an enormously important part in primary care services, are dealt with—to use the awful cliché—on a level playing field with other primary care professionals who operate in the pilot schemes.
Amendments Nos. 43 and 44 deal with the issue of pharmacists on a pharmaceutical list and how narrowly or broadly the conditions are drawn to include people on that list. The situation at the moment is that in order for pharmacists to practice within a health authority, that authority must keep a list of registered pharmacists. Only someone on that pharmaceutical list can practice

1463
within the health authority area. In fact, this is a somewhat narrowing provision in the existing legislation which is changed by Clause 24. It can enable the Secretary of State to alter the definition of the pharmaceutical list. That means, for example, that someone could be on a pharmaceutical list but not necessarily on the pharmaceutical list for any particular health authority. He could therefore, for example, provide a service between London boroughs in a health authority borough or area which was not the primary area of his pharmaceutical registration.
That seems to be precisely the kind of flexibility that the Bill seeks to encourage and it is indeed welcome. But the additional problem about extending that definition of the way in which the list should be organised is that it could include people who are not on the pharmaceutical list and who are not pharmacy contractors appearing on an existing list. It could go beyond that to other people whom the health authority might decide to include within the list as it exists.
That would mean that people other than persons who are already initially included as NHS pharmacy contractors could, under the pilot schemes, be contracted to provide services. It is well understood within the profession that, although happy with the idea that there will be additional flexibility around the lists based on a geographical qualification, it is less happy that it is drawn so widely that it might make it possible for health authorities in pilot schemes to include people who were not already on a pharmaceutical list within that health authority.
Amendments Nos. 45 and 46 deal with the issue—a vexed issue between the professions—of the relative authority of doctors and pharmacists in prescribing. One matter which concerns many pharmacists is that GP dispensing is on the increase. In view of many of the professionals involved in pharmacy that does not necessarily provide the best service. The amendments as they stand would have a simple effect. At the moment health authority lists of registered pharmacists are required to include the address from which the pharmacists dispense their services. In a sense that keeps some kind of regulatory control on the way in which pharmacies are distributed within a health authority area. The purpose of the amendments would be simply to include doctors who are also dispensing, in the sense of having to include their address on a pharmaceutical list. It is to extend the requirement at present made to pharmacists to GPs who are prescribing within a particular health authority area.
The purpose of Amendments Nos. 49 and 50 is equally mechanical but, in the view of many pharmacists practising at a local level, equally important. Again, it tries to establish a level playing field between doctors and pharmacists in these areas. As it stands at the moment, Clause 26 requires pharmacists providing Part I services to be the subject of an NHS contract. The amendments would give the pharmacists a choice of whether to be subject to an NHS contract or a so-called ordinary contract. That again would put them on a par with doctors and dentists under the pilot schemes. In the Second Reading debate the Minister spoke of the advantage of that choice. Although she was
1464
more happy with the idea of people being under NHS contracts, she said that the option of ordinary contracts would be available for those providers who preferred them. The object of those two amendments is simply to include pharmacists with GPs and dentists in having that choice. I beg to move.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: We do not believe that Amendments Nos. 43 and 44 are necessary. The existing draft of Section 41B(2) makes it perfectly clear that additional pharmaceutical services can only be provided by someone whose name is already included in a pharmaceutical list. The noble Baroness may be concerned that the Secretary of State's power of direction in Sections 41B(6) and 27B(6) might be used to redefine a pharmaceutical list more broadly. If so, I am happy to reassure her that we have no intention of using this new power to extend the definition of a pharmaceutical list, even were it possible to do so. The power of direction is necessary so that we can limit the pharmaceutical lists from which a health authority or board can draw when making an arrangement for additional pharmaceutical services. For example, we might wish an individual health authority or board to be able to arrange such provision only with people on its own or adjacent health authorities' or boards' lists. We would perhaps do this so that patients could conveniently access the pharmacy closest to their homes, in which case there would be no need to open the service to providers from further afield.
The noble Baroness suggested that perhaps the Secretary of State could alter the definition of a pharmaceutical list to include new people. That is certainly not our understanding. I am very happy to reassure the noble Baroness that that would just be National Health Service pharmacy contractors.
So far as concerns Amendments Nos. 45 and 46, we have considered them carefully. I have to say that the Government cannot accept them. I should point out that the main purpose of the clause as drafted is to ensure that all dispensing doctors, including those who in future elect to provide personal medical services under our new Part I arrangements, who continue to provide dispensing services under Part II, will be subject as far as their dispensing activities go to the National Health Service tribunal arrangements. The suggested amendment is not relevant to that position in any way.
Doctors are allowed to dispense medicines to their patients in limited circumstances, the most common of which is where their patients are living in a rural area more than a mile from the nearest community pharmacy. The health authority in allowing the doctor to dispense makes no specification as to where the dispensing should take place—it may be from the main surgery or a branch surgery, and in some instances the medicines will be handed over in the patient's home—and we consider that not only would it be impractical, but irrelevant, to include addresses in the proposed list. The jurisdiction of the National Health Service tribunal will apply so long as the doctor is included on the list. That is what we want.

1465
As for Amendments Nos. 49 and 50, I understand why the noble Baroness wishes to create flexibility here. Our view at present is that effectively making National Health Service contracts for the additional services which pharmacists and optometrists might provide would be more attractive to health authorities and boards. Indeed, we thought it might be overcomplicated to open up a new question on the type of contract for health authorities or boards and their potential providers to consider when negotiating. We certainly would not wish this to be a point of dispute, over which service opportunities might be missed. However, we are sensitive to the professions' views. If, in light of what I have said, their general feeling is that the advantages of flexibility outweigh the disadvantages, we are willing to reconsider this provided we can find a simple mechanism for deciding what sort of contract is to be used.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: I am very grateful indeed to the noble Baroness for her replies. I am sorry that both she and I seem to need the attentions of a pharmacist—I shall try not to cough during my brief remarks. I am grateful that she seems to be very encouraging to the professional concerns of some of the pharmacy people with whom we have been talking about these two specific areas. I understand her difficulties about GP prescribing. Perhaps I may take away her replies and consult on them with the profession. But, for the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 44 not moved.]
Clause 24 agreed to.
Clause 25 [Authorised provision of pharmaceutical services by medical practitioners]:
[Amendments Nos. 45 and 46 not moved.]
Clause 25 agreed to.
7.30 p.m.
Baroness Flather Baroness Flather moved Amendment No. 47:
After Clause 25, insert the following new clause—
(".—(1) The Pharmacy Act 1954 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 10(1), after "eight" insert "or 11(4)".
(3) In section 11—

(a) at the beginning of subsection (1) insert "Subject to subsection (4) below,"; and

(b) after subsection (3) insert—

"(4) Where the Committee makes a direction under section 8(I)(ii) in respect of a registered pharmaceutical chemist providing pharmaceutical services or additional pharmaceutical services under or pursuant to—

(a) section 41 or 41A of the National Health Service Act 1977; or

(b) section 27 or 27A of the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978,

and the Committee is satisfied that it is necessary for the protection of members of the public or that it would be in the best interests of that registered pharmaceutical chemist, it may order that his registration in the register shall be suspended forthwith.".").
The noble Baroness said: I shall speak to both amendments standing in my name as they are closely connected. Amendment No. 47 will bring the powers of the professional misconduct committee of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society in line with the other professional misconduct committees of doctors and dentists.
It may surprise the Committee to know that at present an erring pharmacist cannot immediately be stopped from dispensing. At the very least, he can continue working normally for three months, in which time he may lodge an appeal. It is also possible that an appeal may be lodged to give him still more time to continue practising.
I wish to declare an interest. My husband has been chairman of the statutory committee—the professional misconduct committee of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society—for seven years, during which time, on a regular basis, there have been cases where he and others felt strongly that this power should be available to that committee in line with other professional bodies. There was a call for the society to seek the power of suspension from the register by the branches, as set out in the pharmaceutical journal, which stated:
"A Motion urging the Royal Pharmaceutical Society to seek power to suspend convicted pharmacists from the Register of Pharmaceutical Chemists was among nine 'non-controversial' motions referred to the Council from the branch representatives' meeting without debate, on the assumption that they would have been carried. The motion had been put forward by the Society's Bristol branch, which wanted the power of suspension to be used for pharmacists convicted of offences involving drug misuse and/or theft from an employer. The branch was concerned at the length of time that could elapse before such a pharmacist could be struck off under the current Statutory Committee procedure. The branch believed that the Society should emulate the dental and medical professions, which had mechanisms for temporary suspension, pending a full hearing".
There have been many cases of pharmacists stealing cocaine from their employer; of dispensing drugs to addicts without prescription; and of stealing cocaine to feed the habit of a partner—those are examples of actual cases—yet all the pharmacists involved can continue dispensing in the normal way for a minimum of three months, and longer if they lodge an appeal, however spurious that may be. We have been talking of level playing fields. Surely, with a profession that will become more important under present legislation, it is necessary that it be regulated in the same way as the other professions.
I should mention to the Committee that a Private Member's Bill recently had its First Reading in the Commons. It proposes to establish a health committee for pharmacists who have been found to be suffering from alcoholism or other kinds of mental illness. But it is not clear at the present time, because the Bill has not yet been published, whether that committee will have the power of immediate suspension. Even if it has such powers, and that Bill is passed, cases will still arise which are not due to illness but to sheer wickedness on the part of the pharmacist.
The amendment seeks to fill a gap in the armoury of the statutory committee to protect the public from the worst people in the profession; it is only the worst

1467
people who will need to be suspended forthwith and not those who commit minor infringements which can be dealt with by fines or by other means. I hope that the Committee will consider it seriously and that my noble friend the Minister will see its virtue. Pharmacists are still covered by an Act of 1954, which the provision seeks to amend. Also, it is some time since 1954 and no doubt the Pharmacy Act itself is due for revision. Until then, steps should be taken to protect the public as and when the opportunity arises. I beg to move.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: While I understand the concerns of my noble friend and I welcome the spirit of public protection in which she tabled these amendments, there are reasons of equity why the Government cannot accept them.
It seems unfair to us that some pharmacists working in what is generally known as community pharmacy should be subject to the immediate suspension of their registration by their professional regulatory body, while their colleagues working in hospitals or the private sector face no such sanction. For that reason alone I must invite the Committee to resist these amendments.
However, I hope my noble friend will be encouraged by the provisions we introduced early this year to give the NHS tribunal power of interim and immediate suspension from a pharmaceutical list. Matters of misconduct likely to prejudice the efficiency of the service can be brought before the tribunal which, if it considers it necessary, may effectively prevent the person on the list from providing any NHS pharmaceutical service.
Lord Winston: Before the Minister sits down, as a matter of clarification can she explain in the case of an NHS pharmacy whether it is right that a health trust cannot immediately suspend a pharmacist if serious misconduct occurs.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My understanding is that if the committee finds that the pharmacist is unfit to practice, the name can be removed from the register but the pharmacist has three months in which to lodge an appeal.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My view is that a trust directly employing a pharmacist would have employment rights by which it could immediately suspend its employee. However, that could not be done if the pharmacist was a direct contractor in his own pharmacy. Only the registering body could do that and apparently it does not have the power.
Baroness Flather: I was interested to hear the Minister's comments. The distinction is quite spurious. The amendment increasing the powers of the statutory committee will apply to all practising pharmacists. It may not apply to people in employment because there will be other means by which they can be suspended. To prevent a pharmacist found guilty by the statutory committee of serious misconduct from dealing with the public for three months does not make the pharmacist less equal. It brings him in line with the other medical
1468
professions of doctors and dentists. Pharmacists can cause just as much damage to members of the public with who they are in direct contact.
I shall not press the amendment today but will take the opportunity of discussing the matter further with my noble friend the Minister. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 48 not moved.]
Clause 26 [Provision of certain services under NHS contracts]:
[Amendments Nos. 49 and 50 not moved.]
Clause 26 agreed to.
Clause 27 [Medical lists and vacancies: England and Wales]:
[Amendments Nos. 51 to 54 not moved.]
Clause 27 agreed to.
Clauses 28 and 29 agreed to.
Baroness Hayman Baroness Hayman moved Amendment No. 55:
Before Clause 30, insert the following new clause—
POSITION OF HEALTH AUTHORITIES
(". Nothing in this Act shall prevent the direct employment by a Health Authority of a medical practitioner who provides personal medical services.").
The noble Baroness said: The purpose of this amendment is to introduce an extra degree of flexibility into the pilot schemes that may come into force under the Bill. As the Bill now stands, a wide variety of people may put forward pilot schemes. They may be medical practitioners, they may be dental practitioners, they may be NHS trusts and they may—we probed this point earlier today—be commercial organisations. The one group that seemingly cannot put forward pilot schemes is health authorities.
I understand, and the Committee will be aware from earlier discussions, that difficult issues are involved here. If a health authority were directly to employ medical practitioners to provide personal medical services it would be blurring the line between being a provider and a commissioner of services. However, as we discussed earlier, general practitioners are already in that position. There is also the issue of the scrutiny of proposals, but I think that is covered by the fact that the Secretary of State has to scrutinise and approve proposals.
We on this side of the Committee are keen that health authorities should be able directly to employ medical practitioners because we are concerned that in some areas there may be needs which are clear to the health authority but for which there is no taker for a pilot scheme from among local general practitioners or local trusts. I think particularly of areas of great deprivation: the provision of primary health care and personal medical services for homeless people, for a drug addict population and—this is an area to which we shall have to give greater attention in the future—for residents of long-term residential homes and nursing homes. That area needs to be addressed.
The purpose of the amendment is simply to introduce a greater degree of flexibility and to allow that in those circumstances where the health authority, with its epidemiological and overview of the health needs of the population, has identified a need that has not been met by someone coming forward with a pilot scheme, it would be able directly to employ a medical practitioner. I beg to move.
Baroness Cumberlege: As the noble Baroness said, these are difficult issues. When we were considering the content of the Bill we considered carefully whether we wished health authorities directly to employ medical practitioners. The present position under existing legislation is that health authorities can only employ medical practitioners to provide general medical services in exceptional circumstances where other arrangements are unable to secure adequate provision of services in the area. In effect, it is to deal with a crisis in local services.
In the new piloted arrangements which the Bill seeks to introduce there is a clear distinction between the role of health authorities and potential providers of personal medical services. That is crystallised in the contractual nature of their relationship. The health authorities are on one side of the contracted purchasing services; medical practitioners are on the other providing those services. We decided that the virtues of this arrangement and giving both sides a context in which they can discuss and agree what services are specifically required and how most effectively they are delivered were best served by maintaining that distinction in all circumstances. We foresaw difficulties for both health authorities and potential providers under piloted arrangements if health authorities could in effect become both purchasers and providers. It would be difficult for them to appear even handed in the process of allocating contracts if they were one of the potential providers. But even more seriously, if successful, it would compromise the health authority role in monitoring the contract and ensuring that patients got the best deal out of the arrangements.
The current capacity for direct health authority involvement under existing legislation would remain. If a pilot got into serious trouble, for example, and an adequate provision of services could not be maintained, a health authority could protect the interests of patients by employing GPs directly. We believe that it provides for clearer lines of management and accountability for services if direct health authority employment remains, as now, in a fall-back capacity.
Baroness Hayman: I am grateful to the Minister for those helpful remarks. It is helpful to know that in exceptional circumstances it would be possible for a health authority to take up these schemes. It would be a shame if we excluded the possibility of these more imaginative schemes being covered while the more basic and straitjacketed schemes under general medical services were covered. I shall look at what the noble Baroness has said. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clauses 30 and 31 agreed to.
Clause 32 [Regulations and directions]:
[Amendments Nos. 56 and 57 not moved.]
Clause 32 agreed to.
Clause 33 agreed to.
Clause 34 [Short title, commencement and extent, etc.]: [Amendment No. 58 not moved.]
Clause 34 agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Minor and Consequential Amendments]:
[Amendments Nos. 59 to 61 not moved.]
Schedule 2 agreed to.
Schedule 3 [Repeals and Revocations]:
[Amendments Nos. 62 to 64 not moved.]
Schedule 3 agreed to.
In the Title:
[Amendment No. 65 not moved.]
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment.

Child Support (Miscellaneous Amendments) (No. 2) Regulations 1996
7.47 p.m.
Earl Russell Earl Russell rose to move to resolve, 0054hat this House calls on Her Majesty's Government to withdraw the Child Support (Miscellaneous Amendments) (No. 2) Regulations and lay amended regulations omitting Regulation 9.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this Motion, if carried, would request the Government to delete Regulation 9 from the Child Support (Miscellaneous Amendments) (No. 2) Regulations. I have two different reasons for moving the deletion of Regulation 9. First, I believe that what the Government are doing is in itself quite seriously mistaken. Secondly, I believe that in terms of normal procedure in this House what they are doing is—and I choose my words carefully—unusual.
The previous law provided that when a benefit penalty—now 40 per cent. of benefit—was imposed on a woman who did not co-operate with the Child Support Agency, that penalty, which is itself heavy enough, could be suspended—and I say suspended, not remitted—if that person was already subject to a large and serious number of deductions from benefit. That is what is now withdrawn. I think the Government are mistaken because they are creating a very heavy burden on the women concerned and therefore also on their children. They are in fact in danger of infringing the basic principle of social security, which is, "Don't let poor Nellie starve".
In November 1996, 1.7 million people had more than one deduction from benefit. I shall run through some figures which may be familiar to the Minister because they have been quoted in the other place; but they are good figures and they bear repeating. The average—I am not dealing in exceptional cases, this is the average—deduction from benefit is 11.99 for electricity; f10.49 for gas; £4.90 for rent arrears and

1471
other housing costs; £5.83 for water—I fear we may expect that to go up—and £6.37 for social fund payments. That makes a total of £39.58. There are various figures that that omits such as deductions for court fines, which may on occasion be quite heavy. The noble Lord, Lord Gisborough, drew attention to these in the House very recently.
Put on top of a deduction like that—an extra 40 per cent. deduction from gross benefit—one is not going to be left with very much. I do not understand how people are meant to make a honest living on that figure. The Minister is in fact leading them into temptation. We know whose office that is and it ought not to be the office of the Government. So my first objection is simply that this is too heavy: it infringes the basic principle of social security that people ought to be able to live.
If I know the Minister's line of argument he is going to come back to this with a fairly standard set of arguments about why is this the business of the taxpayer. It is the business of the taxpayer because if any taxpayer is that badly off he ought not to be paying taxes at all. It is in the interests of the taxpayer that those who go out of work—I believe that that has happened to 8 million people since the last election—should not waste away, but should be able to resume work at some future date. So I believe that the taxpayer has a concern for keeping his fellows alive. He has that concern as a matter of self-interest as well as of altruism. So I believe that the taxpayer, if he refrains from starving women and children, may be doing so in his own interest.
I come to the circumstances of this change. The old system, the provision for suspension whose disappearance I so much regret, was first agreed to by the Government in response to an amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Carter—and I have given him notice of what I am doing today—to the Child Support Act 1995. The Minister's acceptance of that provision introduced this power to suspend in order to reduce benefit directions in cases of hardship.
On that occasion the noble Lord, Lord Carter, remarked, perhaps just a little smugly that it shows what one can do when one sets out to improve a Bill rather than mortally to wound it. Yes, it does. Appeasement does not work and it has not worked on this occasion either.
That measure was brought into effect by regulations introduced in December 1995 and came into force as recently as January 1996. So this concession has been withdrawn after merely 10 months in operation. It is that which I describe as "unusual". If one is to withdraw a concession that quickly, without casting doubt on the original concession itself, one needs to have a pretty strong reason. I have looked carefully at what Mr. Mitchell said in another place on 11 th December. If I have understood him correctly, he says that he is withdrawing the concession simply because a lot of people used it. It is not open to abuse, but open to use.
If the Government had understood the reasons why this concession was asked of them and when they so generously agreed to it, they would have expected that a lot of people would take advantage of it. They would
1472
have known that the extent of the deduction from benefit was very wide indeed and that the amount of hardship with which we are dealing was very widespread. The number of people who took advantage of this concession seems to me to show exactly how right the noble Lord, Lord Carter, was to move the amendment in the first place. It is really not a sufficient excuse. The Minister needs a better one.
The Government are also getting themselves into a real moral panic about people not collaborating with the agency. But I explained to them in 1991—and everything that has happened since confirms it—that one simply cannot find an economic incentive which is strong enough to make a woman co-operate when she is determined not to do so. I told the Government in 1991 that by believing that they could do it all by economic incentives they were missing so much. The repugnance in many cases to resuming negotiations is an emotional one. One might starve them before one makes them overcome it. So I believe that attempting to make life more difficult for the women concerned is not going to achieve the desired effect however severely it is done. I warned the Government of that and I believe that experience bears me out.
It may be that they have good reasons for this. I know the Minister of old as an honourable opponent and I am pleased to be opposite him. But when future historians read these exchanges—
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: They won't!
Earl Russell: They may: one will, at least. There is no subject so obscure that it cannot be the subject of a Ph.D, as I am sure the noble Baroness knows very well. They may think that the concession made in 1995 followed hard on the vehement reproaches from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, because the Minister was conceding nothing. Therefore, it may look as though it were done for show and not for substance. I believe that that impression would be unfortunate especially since I believe it to be untrue. Some response might help to take that bad taste away. I shall listen to advice from the Opposition Benches because it is the Opposition's honour which has here been wounded. If it were my honour I would know what to do, but since it is their honour I must listen to what they say about it. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House calls on Her Majesty's Government to withdraw the Child Support (Miscellaneous Amendments) (No. 2) Regulations and lay amended regulations omitting Regulation 9.—(Earl Russell.)
7.57 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, if I should trespass on the conventions of the House because I misunderstand the order of procedure, I apologise. Perhaps I am a little confused about what we are doing. I wish to register some concern about this matter. A Starred Question was changed at the last moment. This Motion was inserted today, thus requiring a

1473
re-ordering of our debate speakers' agenda without prior notice and consultation. I cannot believe that that is the best way to get the most helpful and constructive debate.
I cannot and will not suggest to my noble friends on these Benches that we support any such Motion in the Lobby. We do not do so although I support many of the sentiments and share many of the concerns of the noble Earl. As I said, this might have been a more effective contribution had we had more than a few hours' notice that the order of today's agenda was going to be reshaped.
Like the Government, we believe that absent parents should pay proper child maintenance and, like them, we do not believe that one should condone collusion between the parent with care and the absent parent, although I would add that I share with the noble Earl the belief that a proper maintenance disregard and not just the job bonus would encourage more voluntary co-operation from lone parents.
However, this might be the place to pay tribute to the agency. In no case, as far as I know, has the CSA erred in requiring a parent with care to disclose information where that parent is in fear of violence. I hope very much that the CSA will continue to have such an honourable track record. I am sure that if it did make such a grievous error and a lone parent was assaulted that would severely damage the credibility of the agency, which needs to ensure that on this issue, above all, it is protected. The CSA is absolutely right to be very careful indeed.
To come more substantively to the point of Regulation No. 2, since January 1996 the Government decently suspended the imposition of benefit penalties where the lone parent already has deduction from her—I shall use the word "her" throughout for this purpose—benefit for arrears of rent and utilities. Now, less than one year later, that suspension of the Government is being overturned—and why? The Government insisted in the other place that lone parents were using weekly deductions for rent and utilities from benefit as a way of avoiding incurring benefit penalties for failure to disclose relevant information; in other words, lone parents were manipulating their direct deductions to avoid the benefit penalty.
I am neither so sanguine about the ability of lone parents to do that, given the complexity of their finances, nor so cynical that they would do that as the Government's remarks appear to suggest. Essentially, the Government say that lone parents are doing conjuring tricks with their income to avoid having to pay a penalty. In one of two cases that may be the case. However, in my experience it is also true that lone parents give priority to the most urgent and pressing bills. For most of them, that means a home to live in for themselves and their children; that is, their rent payment, followed by payments for their utilities so that they can cook and stay warm, especially as many will be in poor housing and their children may be in poor health.
As the noble Earl said, the simple truth is that benefit levels are so low that 1.7 million claimants are in debt and in arrears and therefore have deductions from
1474
benefit. That situation existed long before the Child Support Agency existed. Debt and deductions are a feature of poverty, not a response to the Child Support Agency or a manipulation of its rules. For the Government to believe otherwise indicates cynicism of a very high order. The Government support that contention by saying that among lone parents as a group there is a high percentage of benefit fraud.
I should like to press the Government on this matter. It is known that, whereas the typical male benefit fraud is for a man to claim unemployment benefit or JSA while doing jobs on the side—any man must know that moonlighting is cheating and wrong—the "typical" fraud perpetrated by a lone parent is to have a boyfriend living in while continuing to claim benefit as a lone parent. I do not condone that financial arrangement, but in no sense is that an offence of equal magnitude as the man who claims JSA and works on the side. Why not? Often, the boyfriend is temporary, feckless and fails to contribute financially to her maintenance and the maintenance of the children, whatever the benefits agency may believe about the bedroom arrangements. He may judge that as the children are not his he should not have to contribute to the household budget for their support. She may have taken him into her bed but it does not mean that she has taken him into her family or that he contributes to the family budget. Understandably, she may believe after her experience that in financial terms she is indeed on her own and is entitled to claim benefit as if she were on her own. That reflects the realities of the world in which she lives. I do not condone fraud. However, to insist that among lone parents there is a high incidence of fraud, and that that is the type of fraud exhibited, is to misunderstand and misread the domestic and financial situation in which lone parents, in good faith, regularly find themselves.
When the draconian 40 per cent. penalty was introduced we argued that instead of increasing the penalties the correct response was greatly to increase the number of home visits to see the true home situation; for example, whether the lone parent had good reason not to reveal information. If the lone parent was not truly "lone" but falsely claimed benefit when she was in a proper and sustained partnership, obviously that would be wrong. However, as that is not always or necessarily the case lone parents should not be abused by treating all of them as fraudulent. That is what the Government do.
My fear, which I am sure other noble Lords share, is that the end result of the Government's draconian policy will not be improved child support but increased child poverty. A lone parent with a child under 11 in the current year will receive income support of about £80 per week. A benefit penalty will leave her with £61 per week. If on top of that she suffers the average level of deductions for arrears on electricity, gas, water and the social fund she and her child will have just £26.26 per week on which to live for all their food, clothes, travel and household costs. That is a sum of money that one of us might spend on one meal in the Barry Room tonight.

1475
Already one child in three in this country is born into poverty. There is no doubt that by adding to the financial pressures on the parent with care the regulations will add to the poverty of the child who is cared for. When we punish the mother we punish the child. To say that the mother should behave differently is all very well, but the child will still suffer. They are without our support and protection. The Government are wrong in what they are doing. I hope that even at this late stage they will consider reverting to their original position and suspend the benefit penalty where other deductions are in place.
8.5 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, in responding to the Motion of the noble Earl, I shall also address the two draft regulations standing in my name on the Order Paper which were laid before the House on 25th November.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to intervene. It is for that reason that I am confused about the procedure. Is the Minister saying that at this point he is to speak to the regulations dealing with the child maintenance bonus? I tried to discover the answer to that question by a hasty exchange of notes. I intended to speak to them but I did not do so. I believed that it was ruled out because the House was dealing with a Motion only on the first set of regulations. This confirms my concern that there should not be a re-arrangement of the agenda at such short notice, as that means that at some stage we are talking at cross-purposes. I do not quite know what we should do now.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I too would find it easier to take the other regulations separately, if the Minister was agreeable to that course.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am happy to help both the noble Baroness and the noble Earl by re-phrasing what I said. I shall respond to the Motion of the noble Earl and speak to the Child Support (Miscellaneous Amendments) (No. 2) Regulations. After we have dealt with that, I shall deal with the Social Security (Child Maintenance Bonus) Regulations.
This is not the first time on which we have discussed the benefit penalty for those parents with care who claim benefit but refuse to co-operate in seeking maintenance for their children. I am sure that your Lordships are well aware of the background. That is especially true of the noble Baroness and the noble Earl, because we have discussed this together on a number of occasions. The penalty known as a reduced benefit direction is intended to make clear to the parent with care the seriousness of her decision not to co-operate with the Child Support Agency. It is important to remember that a reduced benefit direction is imposed only on those parents with care who have no good reason for failing to co-operate.
The Child Support Act rightly places an obligation on both parents to support their children wherever they can afford to do so. This principle would be seriously undermined if the incentive effect of the reduced benefit
1476
direction were to be weakened in any way. One of the regulations before the House today, which is the subject of the Motion of the noble Earl, removes a provision that has been shown to have exactly that effect. Regulation 9 of the Child Support (Miscellaneous Amendments) (No. 2) Regulations, which has already been approved in another place, removes a provision that currently allows a reduced benefit direction to be suspended when, at the same time as that direction is imposed by the child support officer, other deductions are already in place from her income support; for example, to cover repayment of a Social Fund loan or arrears of fuel and rent. Reduced benefit directions are suspended where arrears deductions are made, not deductions for current consumption. The maximum arrears deduction is £7.20. Payment for current consumption will have to be met by the parent, whether she pays by deduction or directly to the supplier, if it is electricity or gas or whatever. It is also true to say that the RBD is suspended where there is any deduction for arrears, so there is not, so to speak, a threshold. If there were any reduction for arrears, the RBD would be suspended.
That provision was introduced in January of this year following a government amendment which I announced at the Report stage of the Child Support Bill. At that stage I was persuaded by the noble Lord, Lord Carter, of two things. One was that the benefit direction should be suspended if either the parent with care or the child was disabled, and nothing we are doing in these regulations changes that.
It is the second part of my remarks that evening that we are now addressing, because during the Report stage I announced that we would suspend the benefit direction if the parent with care had other deductions made directly from her income support. I said at the time that, if we were to suspend reduced benefit directions in these circumstances, we would be discriminating against those parents who were better able to budget or who chose to pay off loans themselves without involving the benefits system. I stand by that view today. I did however agree to put down an amendment to do exactly what the noble Baroness and the noble Earl approve of, although I put in a caveat that I was not at all sure of it. That remains my position, but more so.
I shall come to the reason why we decided to change our minds on that. Since the suspension was introduced, a clear picture has emerged of a pattern of behaviour being adopted by increasing numbers of parents with care who set out not to co-operate with the Child Support Agency. I want to emphasise that again. We are actually talking about parents with care who decide not to co-operate with the agency.
The proportion of parents with care who have their reduced benefit direction suspended because they have deductions for arrears from their income support in place has been steadily increasing, and reached more than 50 per cent. in October. The indications are that this trend may well continue over the coming months. The evidence from Child Support Agency staff is that parents with care who set out not to co-operate with the agency are well aware of this loophole and are not, I am afraid, slow to exploit it. They do this by making sure

1477
they have a deduction in place from their income support as quickly as possible so that when the reduced benefit direction is imposed it is immediately suspended. This behaviour nullifies the incentive effect of the reduced benefit direction, and the numbers involved now make the situation unacceptable.
Our suspicions are further aroused when we consider that only 14 per cent. of all lone parents with a child under five have any deductions from their income support, and 27 per cent. where the child is over five. We already know from the Child Support Agency's own review of "good cause" published earlier this year that 45 per cent.—nearly half—of all parents with care who have a reduced benefit direction imposed fail to contact the Child Support Agency throughout the whole of the good cause process. Your Lordships will recall that this is quite a lengthy process, with a number of different steps in it, yet nearly half simply do not make any contact with the CSA during the procedure, which they must know is going to end up with a reduced benefit direction. Surprisingly, more than half make sure they contact the Benefits Agency in order to obtain a deduction from their benefit before that reduced benefit direction is imposed.
We should also bear in mind that the Benefits Agency's comprehensive and statistically valid review, published last year, showed that nearly 20 per cent. of lone parents were claiming or suspected of claiming benefit fraudulently—the highest proportion of any single client group. Allowing such large numbers of parents with care to have their reduced benefit direction suspended cannot be allowed to continue.
The noble Earl has expressed concerns about the levels of benefit that will be available to a parent with care who has a reduced benefit direction on top of other income support deductions. Indeed, the noble Baroness also expressed her concern about that. The answer to this potential problem lies fairly and squarely in the parent with care's own hands. She can choose to co-operate with the agency and, instead of actually checking with the Benefit Agency that there is a deduction in place, she ought to be checking with the CSA to explain to it what her position is and why she does not wish to co-operate. Of course, if she does that, and if she has a genuine reason for not co-operating and makes representations to the agency, her case will be treated sympathetically. I am pleased to say, and indeed confirm what the noble Baroness said in her speech, that the CSA has a very good record in this area of taking on board the representations of a parent with care and, where it sees that the reasons are genuine, it will not ask the parent with care to continue to work with them and to move to get benefit from the absent parent.
I believe it is simply not fair to the taxpayer or to the majority of parents with care who want the CSA to pursue child maintenance on their behalf to continue to allow others to dodge the penalty of the reduced benefit direction when they have no good cause for refusing to co-operate, and of course letting the absent parent get away without facing up to the responsibilities of the child. The requirement for a parent with care to co-operate with the CSA, unless she has good cause not
1478
to do so, is a founding principle behind the child support scheme, and I believe it has the support of the two main political parties and the vast majority of the British public.
I hope, therefore, with that explanation—an explanation which shows that we have not come to this conclusion lightly; that these are actually the statistics that are coming through from our work—that the noble Earl can see why we have come to the conclusion that we have in order to deal with the issue in this way. Any parent with care who has a genuine reason for not co-operating because she is fearful of the absent parent and how he might react only has to approach the agency to explain and it will take that on board very sympathetically. It has a good track record on this. I am afraid, however, that there is increasing evidence that the only agency they actually contact is the Benefit Agency to make sure that a deduction is in place, which of course blocks any reduced benefit direction. It simply suggests that this concession, made by us and agreed by us all in good faith, is being abused, and I do not believe that that can continue.
On the remainder of the regulations in this miscellaneous amendments package, there are various child support measures which simplify and speed up the handling of applications, together with a number of minor and technical changes. I do not believe that either the noble Earl or the noble Baroness has raised any of these matters and I need not dwell on them further. I hope that the noble Earl can withdraw his Motion, see the good sense of the proposal I am putting this evening and perhaps join us in encouraging parents with care who have a problem to contact the agency to seek its advice and help.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, and given that he has spilled over into some of the other issues caught up by the regulations as opposed to the benefit deduction, may I ask him whether he will be kind enough to answer two points which, because I was confused about the procedure, I failed to make in my remarks. As I understand it, under the regulations on the proposed changes, the Government intend to give parents who are not on benefit in court orders dating back to 1993 the right to apply to the CSA for collection, but this was deferred while the CSA caught up with the backlog. When might we expect them to be brought within the remit of the CSA?
The second question is this. Given that we continue to have unacceptably poor levels of accuracy from the CSA—and I do not think even the Minister will doubt that; it has been regularly drawn to our attention by the National Audit Office—will he confirm that nonetheless the CSA expects to face a cut in its budget for running costs of about a quarter in the year 1998-99? How will that improve the efficiency of the CSA?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Baroness will appreciate that I am not able immediately to give her a detailed response. Of course we accept that the CSA has had, and indeed continues to have, accuracy problems, although they are

1479
improving. It is a difficult field, with some pretty unwilling participants. We mentioned parents with care earlier when referring to the subject of this discussion. There are also some pretty unwilling absent parents. Obtaining the right information is sometimes difficult. I believe that we are making progress. Perhaps I may answer the noble Baroness in writing or in the next debate when I move the next set of regulations.
8.20 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, before I disappoint the Minister, I must make my apologies to the noble Baroness about the timetable. I understand that was inconvenient, and I regret it. The reason is that I had a severe cold over the weekend and my business has been put rather behindhand. I shall try not to cause that sort of inconvenience again, but we all do it to one another sometimes.
I was a little surprised by what the noble Baroness said about the CSA having never erred in a case involving domestic violence. I remember well one that came to me from Todmorden CAB where the woman who had been alleging domestic violence was told—I paraphrase from memory—to run away and stop making a fuss. I have had at least a dozen other such cases through my hands, most of which came to rest in the files of the Minister's honourable friend, Mr. Burt, who dealt with them expeditiously and effectively. If he checks his files, he will find that that is not true.
It is an unwise way of dealing with intimidation to assume that it does not matter because it has not actually been carried out. It is like the famous case of the asylum seeker from Bosnia who was told that the death threats against him must not have been genuine since they had not been carried out. It is an unwise way of dealing with it.
The Minister says that no one suffers a benefit penalty unless they refuse to collaborate for no good reason. How on earth can the Minister know that? He can know that he has not discovered a good reason. He can know that he has not been persuaded by the reason that has been alleged. But how can the Minister know in all the private history of a dead marriage that none of the reasons is good? People do also—this has survival value—act upon impressions.
I recall evidence given once by a woman who said, "It is difficult to describe. He had a strange and odd effect on me. It was the way he looked at me". I am sure that the Minister would not accept that as good cause. The man of whom the woman was speaking was Thomas Hamilton. We are unwise to ignore that sort of impression.
The Minister says that it would be discriminatory to relax rules in favour of people with a particular load of debt. The Minister would not do very well in banking. That is bad banking practice. He says that there is a pattern of behaviour involving non-co-operation. He would do well to study the various reports on the subject by Professor Gary Craig of the Children's Society. He has found a great many reasons for non-co-operation with the CSA, some of
1480
them extremely good ones. The Minister is also unwise always to assume the worst possible motives. It is like a certain sort of hellfire preacher. As a limerick addict I quote:
"Said the Reverend Jahez McCotten
Of the devil the foxtrot's begotten!
Said Jones to Miss Bly,
Never mind the old guy.
To the pure almost everything's rotten!"
I cannot help but think that that is the attitude of the DSS where it thinks that it can find collusion.
We have been at these arguments a long time. We shall he at them a long time longer. The Minister has not got an inch nearer persuading me that he is right and that the CSA will last, but we will not settle that tonight. So I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion to resolve, by leave, withdrawn.

Child Support (Miscellaneous Amendments) (No. 2) Regulations 1996
8.24 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 25th November be approved [5th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this Motion. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 25th November be approved [5th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Social Security (Child Maintenance Bonus) Regulations 1996
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 25th November be approved [5th Report front the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, these regulations provide for the introduction of child maintenance bonus, provision for which was contained in the Child Support Act 1995. I do not intend to go over the detail of all the regulations, so perhaps I can give a brief outline of the main points of the scheme.
Basic entitlement to a child maintenance bonus rests on the claimant satisfying three main conditions. First, the parent with care or her partner must be entitled to either income support or income-based jobseeker's allowance; secondly, child maintenance must be in payment, whether it be paid direct to the parent with care or collected by the Secretary of State on her behalf; and, thirdly, the parent with care or her partner must start work, or increase their hours if they already work part time, so that they stop claiming the qualifying benefit.
The child maintenance bonus will be paid to the parent with care as a tax-free cash lump sum when she leaves benefits. As long as the parent with care has a

1481
maintenance assessment of £5 or more, the bonus will build up at a rate of £5 for each week she has been on benefit and receiving child maintenance. The maximum bonus will be £1,000.
This scheme has been designed with two important goals in mind. The first relates to getting people back to work, the second to encouraging co-operation with the Child Support Agency. We do not require parents with care to seek work if they have no wish to do so. However, we do wish to give every encouragement to those parents with care who do wish to improve their family's standard of living by returning to work. The tax-free cash lump sum which this scheme will provide for parents with care when they return to work will go a long way towards both encouraging them to look for work, and helping them make the transition from benefit to work as successfully as possible.
The second goal of the scheme is to encourage co-operation with the Child Support Agency. I repeat that it is a widely accepted principle that parents should maintain their children wherever they have the means to do so, and not pass financial responsibility for their children on to the taxpayer. And that means co-operating with the Child Support Agency in the assessment and collection of maintenance.
By linking the amount of bonus which a parent with care can receive to child maintenance in payment, we have ensured that the scheme will act as an incentive for all parents to co-operate with the agency—parents with care will receive a direct cash benefit from maintenance paid for their child, and absent parents will see their child benefiting from the maintenance they pay.
We discussed the child maintenance bonus at some length in Committee. There was general agreement, although I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, would like to go further with disregards, and I am sure that she may return to that, but I believe that the child maintenance bonus represents a major step forward in trying to help those parents with care who want to go into work. So far as concerns the collection of pre-April 1993 cases, we have no plans at this stage to bring on those cases, so that may help the noble Baroness. I have perhaps been on my feet long enough, and I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 25th November be approved [5th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish.)
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, we obviously welcome the bonus which the Minister has explained means that from April 1997 there is effectively a £5 a week disregard for up to four years which is then paid to lone parents entering work. May I press the Minister? When he says that the bonus will be paid to lone parents who no longer qualify for benefit, is he saying that lone parents who are on family credit would not be eligible for the work bonus, because that would suggest a problem with issues such as childcare disregard? The Minister talked about benefit; he did not confine himself to income support. Perhaps
1482
the Minister can help me on that point. That was not my understanding of it, but his remarks suggested some possibility of confusion. Perhaps the Minister can help me.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am happy to help the noble Baroness on this point. I think I said at one stage that I was talking about moving off income support or jobseekers' allowance. Perhaps I did not repeat that later, but that is the position.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I am happy to have the Minister's reassurance. It is clear that a lone parent entering work has additional costs and worries from clothing to transport to childcare, as well as the worries of coming off a low but reliable income. To that extent, the bonus is of considerable help.
We also welcome the fact that the bonus signals that the parent with care is receiving the equivalent of a modest disregard. However, we regret that it is not a proper, true maintenance disregard, however modest, which is payable to all lone parents with care, including those with very young children who not unreasonably put their parenting responsibilities first. We also regret that it is tied to child maintenance paid. We understand the thinking behind that but it means that the bonus of a lone parent returning to work will depend not on her returning to work but on whether the absent parent is himself in work and has therefore paid child maintenance. Otherwise it means that his poverty will reinforce hers; if he is on benefit there will be no bonus for her. I would love to be wrong about that, but I understand that if he is on income support and therefore paying only a relatively small disregard—in other words, the top-slicing of his income support far below £5 per week at £2.50—I do not see how that can roll up to the job bonus which the Minister indicated. Therefore, whether she receives the bonus depends not on whether she is in work but on whether he is in work. That turns the whole job bonus into a lottery, which is regrettable. I do not have an easy answer but it presents a genuine problem to which I hope the Minister can respond in reply.
My second point relates to the Minister's remarks about work incentive. He is right in saying that we should help lone parents with transitional costs to encourage them with the risks of taking up a job. We welcome that. However, given that philosophy which I entirely share, why in the Budget did the Government first choose to freeze and then propose to abolish the lone parent benefit, which, because it is not means tested can be carried by the lone parent into work? It is therefore a positive incentive for her to find work knowing that benefit—in other words, a platform—is securely in place. Why are the Government producing a child support bonus on the one hand while taking away a similar well established benefit which is doing a similar job—that is, the lone parent benefit—on the other hand? Give with one hand and take away with the other—apparently nowhere is that more true than in child support. The three cap trick is a good trick for conjurers at a children's party but it is not a sound basis for Government policy as regards the children of lone

1483
parents. It sends out a signal that government value a lone parent who works more highly than a lone parent who parents properly. As the Social Security Advisory Committee stated:
"We believe in looking a work incentives for lone parents. The legitimate need to support the parenting role rather than encouraging the parent to work should be given due weight".
Potentially the welfare of 2.7 million children depends on the conclusions which the Government reach about benefit provision for lone parents. I repeat that we welcome the bonus but we wish that it were more widely extended and that it did not appear to be the lottery that it apparently is.
8.30 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, the Minister made one quite serious mistake in the course of introducing his regulations. He said that the noble Baroness and I wished to go further and have a maintenance disregard. He is right that we wish to have a maintenance disregard but he is wrong to suppose that that is going further. It is travelling in a quite different direction.
We on these Benches are strongly in favour of incentives to return to work. But that is a second priority. The first priority is to ensure adequate levels of support so that people can eat. That is the problem to which we were addressing the maintenance disregard.
As was pointed out in 1991, the problem is that, because of the operation of passported benefits, receiving maintenance puts the women below income support level. The back-to-work bonus has never done one thing to meet that and therefore it is addressing the wrong problem. I have one or two more points to make about it.
First, it takes four years to reach a bonus of £1,000. I wonder whether that is a very realistic incentive. Secondly, it applies only to full-time work, whereas more and more jobs are part-time. Is the Minister prepared to consider doing anything for people who get part-time work? Thirdly, it provides only for getting into work. What happens to the person who gets into work, banks the bonus and leaves after a week? With the Minister's attitude to sin, he might have foreseen that possibility. I am surprised that he has not. Fourthly, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, about the burden on the CSA of budget cuts during the changed programme. Does the Minister really believe that giving the CSA a large extra job of work at the moment is expedient?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, the noble Baroness described the disregard as modest. Indeed, it certainly starts off as modest but it builds up, as the noble Earl pointed out, over quite a long period of time to £1,000. The point is that it builds up, so at any stage between the first week and after almost four years it will be between £5 and £1,000. It depends on how long the parent with care is receiving maintenance payment and building up the bonus before she goes back to work. That is entirely her decision, but we all know and have agreed that one of the best ways to improve the living standards of parents with care and their children is for them to find and return to work. We are also agreed that sometimes the most difficult part of that operation is the transition. That is why we have devised a number of ways of helping
1484
people to get back into work. This is one of them, together with the other bonus in the jobseeker's allowance which helps people who work part-time while on benefit and allows them to put aside some money and have up to £1,000 when they move into full-time work.
I believe that the key to the problem is coming off income support or jobseeker's allowance. I do not believe that it is so much the definition of work but I will check that. I believe that I am right in saying that it is coming off either of those benefits.
We are tying the bonus to child maintenance paid. We are doing so because, as I said, we want to give incentives to both parties. By tying the bonus to child maintenance paid we hope to give an incentive to the absent parent to encourage him, usually, to adopt a regular pattern of maintenance payments in the interests of the parent with care and of the child, so that if the parent with care goes into work some of the money which the absent parent has paid over will be available for that bonus. Therefore, we see this as a double incentive. It will help and provide an incentive to a parent with care moving off benefit and into work. We also hope that it will act as an incentive to an absent parent to ensure that he pays the maintenance and that it is not assumed to be notional, whether paid or not. It does have to be paid—
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the Minister to clarify the point. Does it mean that if the absent parent is on benefit it does not count as child maintenance paid and therefore, for that period of time, the mother though going back into work will not be eligible for any job bonus?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I was just coming to that point. I was trying to be as logical as possible. The noble Baroness asked about the absent parent who was on benefit. Of course, that absent parent will normally pay a contribution to maintenance of £4.80 a week. While that may not be £5, it will build up towards the bonus. I hope that that is a satisfactory answer.
I hope that I have answered all the points arising in respect of the child maintenance bonus regulations. I commend them to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Social Security (Incapacity for Work and Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 1996
8.40 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 2nd December be approved [5th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the new structure of benefits for people who are incapable of work have been in place for over 18 months now. These amendments introduce a number of tidying up measures and points of clarification. In addition they address the effects of a recent decision of the High Court which concerned the

1485
beneficial provision which allows people who would otherwise fail the all work test to be treated as incapable of work in exceptional medical circumstances.
The introduction of incapacity benefit was an important reform of a major area of benefit provision. With any reform of this magnitude it is inevitable that there will be the need for some fine-tuning in the light of practical experience. These amendments affect three sets of the regulations which contain the detailed rules for determining entitlement to benefits for incapacity. None, however, introduces any significant changes to the Government's established policy in this area.
Most of the amendments before us are aimed at achieving greater clarity, and a more consistent application of the all work test. Some are directly beneficial; for example, we are widening the provision which prevents incapacity benefit recipients being excluded from benefit solely because they are caring for a close relative. The definition of close relative is being expanded to include, among others, grandparents and grandchildren.
The new all work test of incapacity is the key to the reforms that we introduced last year. Our experience of the procedures so far has shown that, in a few areas, the wording of some of these activities and descriptors needs to be more precise.
In improving the wording of these provisions our aim has been to ensure that they reflect more accurately the original policy intention. I assure noble Lords that none of these improvements tightens the test beyond this original policy intention, which was set out in a report, The Medical Assessment for Incapacity Benefit, published before the new arrangements came into force in April 1995.
It might be useful if I illustrate this with an example. One of the functional areas assessed under the all work test is manual dexterity. The activities specified measure a person's ability to perform various tasks with his hands. We want to make it clear that the ability to turn a tap refers to an ordinary sink tap; and the word "control", in the phrase "control knobs on a cooker", is intended to be an adjective, not a verb.
The High Court decision which we are addressing concerned the provision which allows a person who fails the all work test still to be treated as incapable of work if the examining doctor considers that exceptional medical circumstances exist. This is, of course, a medical question. The High Court decided it was wrong to make the doctor's opinion binding on the adjudication officer, with the result that lay adjudication officers and appeal tribunals must apply the criteria. We are therefore amending the provision to define more clearly the circumstances in which it should apply; and to ensure that, while the opinion of the examining doctor is not binding, decisions are still based on medical evidence. We believe this is essential, given that we are talking about a specialist medical question. But an additional safeguard has been built in. Adjudication officers will now be able to consider other medical evidence—for example from the claimant's own doctor—when applying the provisions.
Finally I should like to remind the House that the Government's reforms in this area were introduced against the background of a rapid and unexplained growth in numbers receiving the former invalidity benefit. We believe the measures we have introduced address these developments in a fair and balanced way. The regulations before us today introduce some important improvements, and I commend them to the House.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 2nd December be approved [5th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish.)
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, most of these regulations are tidying up and we welcome some aspects of them. We welcome Regulation 2(11)(b), involving a test of sitting in a chair comfortably. We welcome also Regulation 2(3)(a), which allows medical evidence other than from one's own doctor to be relevant, which may perhaps save the disabled person from seeking a judicial review.
However, I should like to ask the Minister about the implication of Regulation 27, which the Minister has suggested was merely fine tuning. That is not the understanding of the disability organisations, which consider that is an extremely damaging change. Their understanding of what this regulation does is at odds with what the Minister said in his introduction it was intended to achieve. Therefore, perhaps I may explain to the Minister how that regulation is being understood outside this House. If he can allay those fears and worries, that would be extremely welcome because at present, those organisations are extremely concerned about the implications of that regulation.
The current situation is that there are four exceptional circumstances in which a disabled person who does not pass the all work test can nevertheless be deemed still to be incapable of work. We understand that this regulation reduces that to three exceptional circumstances, therefore eliminating the condition that the person:
"suffers from some specific disease, bodily or mental disablement and by reason of such disease or disablement, there would be a substantial risk to the mental or physical health of any person if he were found capable of work".
In everyday life, that means there are many disabling conditions which would not allow a person to score the sufficient 15 points on the all work test but would nevertheless have the practical effect of making it impossible for him to work without his health being seriously at risk.
In addition, we understand that a previously undiagnosed potentially life-threatening condition now has to be discovered by a BAMS doctor if that is to come into play. That really strains credibility. Perhaps the Government would give us an example. One wonders whether, if the GP has not discovered that condition, the sick person might have a claim for legal action against the GP should the BAMS doctor discover such a condition.

1487
We are particularly worried because the all work test was drawn up after careful evaluation. It was found to be essential to have those four safety nets in place simply because the Government have insisted, for the incapacity benefit, that there should be a test which is dependent on current functioning physical capacity—lifting a hat, walking upstairs, walking along a road, bending, carrying a sack of potatoes and so on. Therefore, such current functioning capacity cannot take into account such considerations as the effect of work on continuing health.
Older people, especially those aged over 55, are vulnerable under this provision where the effects of ageing interlock with a deteriorating condition. The disability organisations fear that the Government may be reacting hastily and that they may be acting vindictively because of the Moule case, and they are worried. The Minister will know that in that case, a young man with a very severe skin condition failed the all work test and would have been judged capable of work except that the adjudication officer decided under Regulation 27 that a severe skin condition meant that his mental and physical health might be affected adversely if he were required to work. The BAMS doctor decided that Mr. Moule did not qualify under Regulation 27 and the adjudication officer felt obliged to follow the doctor's opinion, given the wording of the regulation.
Mr. Moule challenged that in the High Court by judicial review. Mr. Justice Collins found that the regulation was indeed ultra vires because it displaced the role of the adjudication officer with that of the BAMS doctor and that that ran contrary to statutory procedure.
I understand that the Government are appealing the decision, but it is right that the law should be clarified on that point. Nevertheless, we believe firmly that the Government must either change the functional capacity all work test or allow all the exceptional grounds to remain, including the exception in relation to the effect of work on a deteriorating health condition; otherwise, we warn the Government that they will face a series of embarrassing judicial reviews and court cases which, I am advised, they may well lose.
More generally, it cannot be right that the position of someone who is already in poor health should be substantially worsened by their being required to work simply because they cannot pass an incapacity test which most of us regard as being both inappropriate and inadequate but which the Government have persisted in despite much evidence to the contrary.
Earl Russell: My Lords, as regards Regulation 27 and related matters, the noble Baroness has spoken for both of us. The only other comment I have to make is to welcome the change in the definition of "a close relative", which pretty well exactly repeats the terms of an amendment I moved during the passage of the Bill a long time ago. You never know when you are going to be lucky!
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I wish that I had the noble Earl's depth of historical stories in order to top the expression, "You never know when you
1488
are going to be lucky". Nevertheless, I hope that I can persuade the noble Baroness and the noble Earl that their fears and those of outside organisations regarding Regulation 27 are ill founded. As I said earlier, the reason we have had to take the steps outlined in Regulation 27 relates to a recent decision of the High Court. That ruling means that the exceptional medical circumstances provision must now be applied by lay adjudicators where we previously thought it should be applied by the BAMS doctors. That lay adjudication can be applied without any need for medical input, yet the judgments themselves, as the noble Baroness clearly explained, require medical judgment. Therefore, it is important to ensure that such judgments are based on medical evidence.
We should not lose sight of the fact that the provisions need to be considered only where people have failed to satisfy the all-work test. They are intended to cover "exceptional circumstances". The provisions were intended to be applied by qualified medical experts. We now feel that they need to be more precisely defined in the light of the court's ruling that an adjudication officer, a lay adjudicator, ought to make the decision.
The regulations previously referred to a,
"severe uncontrolled or uncontrollable disease".
Medically, such a disease would have potentially life threatening consequences. That was reflected in the guidance for examining doctors. The amendment defines this "exceptional circumstance" provision more precisely in the light of the High Court judgment. But we are satisfied that it will not exclude anyone whom we originally intended to be covered. We are redefining the provision more precisely in the light of the court's decision. But, as I said, it is not our intention that anyone who would have been covered originally should now be excluded.
In the case of a physical disease, the substantial risk criteria applies to people with a life-threatening uncontrolled or uncontrollable disease. As a further safeguard in mental health cases, the new definition of "severe mental illness" for the purpose of the exempt categories means that doctors will need to consider carefully whether the criteria for exemption are met. The possibility of exemption will need to be considered again during the all-work test examination. In particular, the doctor will consider whether a person's mood or behaviour is so adversely affected that his ability to function socially is severely restricted or that he is very likely to pose a real danger or a threat to others such as work colleagues or members of the public. In such cases, the doctor will consider advising that the client meets the criteria for exemption on the grounds of severe mental illness.
Where a person has recently been receiving treatment and there is evidence that he has a mental disease which is at present uncontrolled to a degree that he might represent a substantial risk to his own life, an exceptional circumstance would apply. I should stress that the risk could arise either from self-harm or self-neglect.
As originally drafted, the exceptional circumstance criteria could be applied only on the recommendation of a BAMS doctor. While the adjudication officer must still take account of the opinion of the BAMS doctor, he

1489
will in future be able to consider other medical evidence, including any provided by the claimant's GP. He may prefer such evidence if he considers that it outweighs that of the BAMS doctor.
I hope that I can assure the noble Baroness that we are satisfied that the people who were intended to be covered by the original position will still be covered. The IB handbook has been amended to take account of the changes to the detailed wordings of the regulations, but the advice is entirely consistent with the original intended coverage. The consideration is essentially a medical one and the approved doctor will be required to consider for every client examined whether the individual circumstances justify the application of these criteria.
The department issues detailed guidance to approved doctors on this area of the IB regulations. There it is. The BAMS doctor will still need to consider the individual clinical circumstances and the treatment in order to judge whether a person's disease is likely to remain controlled for the foreseeable future. In giving that advice, the doctor will assume that the person will be found capable of work because the exceptional circumstances are considered only where people fail the test. If the doctor considers that the disease would be uncontrolled in such circumstances, he should advise the AO that an exceptional circumstance applies. I know that we are discussing a complicated issue, but I hope that the assurance that I have given allays the fears which the noble Baroness expressed on behalf of some outside bodies.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, I should like further clarification. If the adjudication officer receives from the BAMS doctor a statement saying that he does not believe that the claimant falls into the exceptional circumstances category and the adjudication officer is not persuaded by that opinion, does that mean that the AO may invite a second medical opinion and may indeed be bound by or follow that second opinion? In other words, I wish to know where the initiative lies for making the final judgment.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, as a result of a court judgment, the initiative obviously lies with the adjudication officer. That is why we are here this evening. Therefore, if the BAMS doctor does not make the observation but the adjudication officer has other evidence presented by the client—perhaps, as I mentioned earlier, from the client's own GP—then the adjudication officer has to make a judgment. He is not bound by the judgment of the BAMS doctor.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I thank the Minister.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Local Authorities (Contracting Out of Allocation of Housing and Homelessness Functions) Order 1996
8.57 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Earl Ferrers)The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Earl Ferrers) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 28th November be approved [6th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Earl said: My Lords, the order will enable local authorities to contract out their executive functions under Parts VI and VII of the 1996 Housing Act. Where an authority does so it will have to set out exactly how the allocation scheme should be operated and it will have to decide which classes of person are, or are not, qualifying persons who would be entitled to appear on the register. The authorities will remain ultimately responsible for any functions which are carried out on their behalf by contractors.
We consulted the local authority associations in England and Wales in October and we received no objections on the proposals which are set out in the order. The order is welcomed by local government and is needed by local authorities which have transferred stock. I commend the order to your Lordships.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 28th November be approved [6th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Earl Ferrers.)
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I am not sure that all is well in the best of all possible worlds as the noble Earl seemed to indicate in his introduction. The order gives local authorities the power to delegate to other bodies the exercise of most of their allocation and homelessness functions under Parts VI and VII of the 1996 Housing Act. It particularly applies to local authorities which have transferred their council housing stock to private companies under large-scale voluntary transfer arrangements and validates their work, excluding only certain listed functions set out in Schedule 1.
While it is right to allow local authorities as much discretion as possible as to how they operate this law, consistent with their legal responsibilities—and we therefore have no objection to that aspect of the order which insists that certain functions, especially the financial ones, cannot be delegated—we nonetheless believe that the order is far too narrowly drawn. In our view, other responsibilities should also have been ring-fenced and should not be available for delegation.
We believe that the order permits a local authority to delegate functions to another body so far as concerns homelessness which should not be so delegated. For example, I refer to such decisions as to whether an applicant is homeless, in priority need, is not intentionally homeless, and has a local connection. We believe that those key policy decisions should be determined by the local authority because it is held responsible for that under the law and is accountable in the courts for its actions.

1491
We believe, therefore, that the order fails to ring-fence enough of those functions. First, it allows the local authority to delegate the assessment of homelessness to an agent even though the local authority will remain responsible in law. I believe that any local authority which delegated such a function would be acting unwisely, putting itself and its council taxpayers at risk of a legal action on the lines of fiduciary responsibility. The Minister will be well advised to consider that issue. I believe that a local authority will put itself and its taxpayers at risk.
Secondly, I believe that the Government, to a degree, are acting somewhat in bad faith. I and the noble Earl were involved in handling this section of the Bill when it went through the House, as was the Minister. At no point that I recall did the Minister indicate that private companies should be allowed to exercise and determine these pivotal functions and decisions. Throughout the debates during the Bill the Minister emphasised that local authorities retained their responsibility under the law. We were led to believe that that meant that as a function they could not be delegated.
When at any stage during the passage of the Bill did the Minister clarify the distinction between delegation and responsibility, as he now does? We believe that it was inappropriate. These regulations were not encompassed by debate when the Bill was passed. It was not our understanding, and had the Government indicated that that was their intention, I for one, and I am certain the noble Earl too, would have moved amendments to exclude that possibility and to get on record in Hansard our concern about such a possibility. We did not do so because we did not understand that the Minister had that in mind. At no point did he make clear that that was his intention. I believe that that was not in good faith.
Thirdly—it is perhaps the point that really matters—these regulations will now make homeless people even more vulnerable than they are currently. The work in determining whether someone is homeless, and the right response to their homelessness, is highly sensitive work. Such homeless people may now find that private companies rather than their elected local authority and councillors will determine their rights to perhaps the most important asset in their life—a decent and stable home. We may find that private bodies, not necessarily working within the professional codes of local government, will be handling highly confidential material supplied by a general practitioner on physical and mental health, issues of domestic violence and abuse, immigration status, and the like.
Such matters should not be handled by private companies not controlled by the proper ethical standards of local government. It is quite improper, particularly as private companies and private landlords are not exactly well known for compliance with the law on such issues as race and sexual harassment. After all, increasingly people are homeless because the private sector has evicted them. The Government expect the private sector to rehouse them. On top of that they ask the private sector to lay down the rules and determine who shall be housed by whom and when. We think that that is unreasonable, inappropriate and unfair.
1492
The Government are effectively releasing local government from its statutory duties but not from its legal responsibility. We warn local authorities now to take the advice of the local authority associations not to go down that road because trouble lies at the end of it.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I, too, have misgivings about these regulations, to put it no stronger. I confirm what the noble Baroness said about there being no mention of this point at any stage during the passage of the Bill. It is not impossible—I choose words carefully—that at least one Division might have gone a different way had that information been available. It surprises me very much that there is no restriction in the regulations in terms of the competence of the body to which functions are delegated. For all we know it might be a body such as Group 4. There are no clear provisions about avoiding conflict of interest; and there are many chances of that.
While I was pleased to hear what the Minister said about the local authority being ultimately responsible, there are some quite big problems here. I am not convinced that they have been thought through. The local authority will be liable to judicial review because it is its duty. But how far can we answer for the conduct of people other than ourselves? Can we have a categoric assurance that the company to whom all functions are delegated will not be allowed to plead commercial confidentiality when the local authority's duty is at stake?
Can we be told whether the local government ombudsman will retain jurisdiction over functions carried out by a contracted body? Can we be told whether a review under Section 204 of the Act may be delegated? If so, we should remember that it is the basic principle of natural justice that a body may not be judge and party in its own cause. I should have thought that the risk of that principle being broken was perfectly obvious.
The Minister may not be able to answer all the points tonight. If not, I hope that he will write to me because these are serious questions and I am worried about them.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Baroness did not find it in her mind to approve the regulations in the way that I had hoped she would. It was made perfectly clear throughout the Housing Bill that that was what was intended. We consulted local authorities in October and received no objections to the proposals.
The noble Baroness said that it would be quite wrong for the private sector to lay down rules as to who should be housed and when. That is where the noble Baroness is greatly mistaken. It is for the local authority to lay down the rules under which the contractor, for want of a better expression, will operate. It is up to the person who takes that responsibility on to abide by the contract. It will be for the local authority to determine who shall or shall not be a suitable person to be housed. It is only the executive function that will be carried out by the other body. I do not think that there is anything wrong or particularly unique in that. We have seen it in many other cases.

1493
Perhaps I might ask the noble Baroness to address her mind to a different sort of case, but one which caused all the fuss to start with; namely, when prisons were contracted out. The fact is that it depends on what is written in the contract. There is no reason to think that this will not be done just as well under the present system.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, perhaps the Minister will give way. The difference in his analogy is that Group 4 does not decide who is a prisoner. The point here is that, although the local authority may lay down the rules as to what counts as homelessness, it will be for the private company to determine whether an individual conforms to the criteria—in other words whether they are "Guilty, M'lord, as pleaded". That is why the case is not analogous with Group 4.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I do not know why the noble Baroness keeps talking about Group 4; I did not even mention Group 4. The fact is that the local authority will determine what are the criteria by which a person will be determined to be homeless. That is the position.
I remind the noble Baroness that all the actions of a contractor are, by virtue of Section 72 of the 1994 Act, to be treated as actions of the authority; and the authority therefore remains the one who is responsible. If anything is wrong in that action, the local authority will be responsible.
The noble Baroness said that private companies exercise these functions. That is perfectly true. However, we made it clear throughout the passage of the Bill that in large scale voluntary transfer we would expect to see the registered social landlord carrying out the functions. Registered social landlords are private companies in this sense, and they are responsible bodies. We consulted local authorities about this matter and no objections were raised.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, referred to conflict of interest. Most contracts would be let to a registered social landlord, possibly a housing association. Those bodies are required by the Act to co-operate with local authorities in discharging their functions. They share the same objectives in meeting housing need.
The noble Earl also asked whether, after contracting out the homelessness functions, they would be subject to the local government ombudsman. The answer is that they will be. The noble Earl also asked how far an authority can answer for the actions of others. The authority will need to make arrangements with its contractors, who will usually be a responsible registered social landlord. That will ensure that if there is a successful challenge in the courts the authority can require the contractor to respect the decisions of the courts.
I shall certainly look at what the noble Earl said. If I have not covered all the points that he mentioned, I shall write to him. I hope that the House will agree the passage of this order. I commend it to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Non-Domestic Rating (Chargeable Amounts for Small Hereditaments) Regulations 1996
9.12 p.m.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 9th December be approved [6th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Earl said: My Lords, as the regulations implement the measures outlined in the Budget which will reduce the rate bills of small business properties, I cannot believe that they can be in any way controversial. If it is for the convenience of the House, I will move them formally. If, on the other hand, your Lordships wish me to go into any explanation about them, I shall be happy to do so. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 9th December be approved [6th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Earl Ferrers.)
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I realise that we are keeping the noble Earl from his dinner, so I apologise. Nevertheless, these are important regulations, and this one is no less important.
In these regulations the Government are freezing small business rates for this forthcoming year rather than allowing them to rise by inflation. As primary legislation requires them to rise by inflation, we need regulations to "do a Henry VIII". That will clearly benefit 1.1 million small businesses. As the Government, rather than local government, are picking up the Bill, it would be churlish to oppose this measure—though, given the pressures on government spending and the recent cuts in benefit and the like, the fact that the Government can find £100 million in additional relief for small businesses comes as some surprise, especially as it will absorb all the savings to be found apparently from the cuts in the notorious housing benefit regulations which we anticipate. Those regulations will force middle-aged men and women under 60 into bed-sit accommodation. The savings on the change in housing benefit will generate £105 million, of which, so far as I can see, every penny will go to ease and freeze the rate increase on small businesses.
That was an additional surprise to these Benches because the Government had insisted that, given the feel-good factor, local businesses would now be in a position to pay the proper input. Or do the Government accept that small businesses are so desperately in need that they require additional relief above and beyond what they would incur? It is a further surprise to these Benches because the Government have limited the revenue support grant to fund their tax cuts of one penny in the pound, thus forcing the council tax rate up by an average of 6 per cent.—double the rate of inflation. Or do the Government hope that the council tax rises will be blamed on Labour and Liberal local government while the freezing of the non-domestic rate will be to the benefit of the Government?
It is worth pointing out that the Government's timetable is short and local authorities will experience some costs in billing. If the Government can help us on

1495
the point, that would be welcome. Will they tell us whether the proposals require changes to the demand notice or to the accompanying explanatory notes?
What all this shows is the absurdity of the current arrangements for the business rate. Some areas are rather more prosperous than others and it is appropriate for businesses there to pay a higher non-domestic rate. In some areas business enjoys a higher level of services and it is appropriate that they should pay a higher level of non-domestic rate. It is also clear that small firms agree with that point of view. In the Department of Employment research of 1994 on the impact of rates on business, only 20 per cent. of firms thought that the current arrangements for the non-domestic rate had improved the system by removing variations in poundage between different local authorities. Three-quarters of firms agreed with the statement that business should pay rates according to the extent to which they benefited from local services.
Soon, I hope, we shall restore the business rate to local communities while ensuring that local authorities work in partnership with their local businesses to rebuild local economies which have been decimated over the past decade.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I always thought that the noble Baroness was fairly difficult to satisfy. Now she has shown that to be a fact. The festive spirit of good will does not seem to have entered her Benches. The Government are actually reducing liability for tax, freezing any increases in certain respects and reducing liability in other respects. All the noble Baroness can say is: "Oh well, if you used that money you would be able to help those in bed-sits".
The two are not comparable. As the noble Baroness knows, we must look at each facet and deal with it in the right way as an individual issue. What she said inferred that small businesses were in a bad way. Then she asked whether they needed the help. All I can tell the noble Baroness is that we on this side feel that small businesses and the part that they play in the economy are very important. It is interesting to note from her reply that the party opposite does not set such store by small businesses.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, will the Minister give way?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I shall give way in a minute. The noble Baroness is persistent and always tries to intervene. I gave way on the previous occasion and I will give way now.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I thank the Minister for demonstrating the usual courtesies of the
1496
House. I did not object to the freezing of the benefit for local businesses because it is being funded by central government. However, I was making the point not that we were not anxious to assist small businesses but why the Government should think that small businesses needed assistance if the words of the Chancellor in his Budget speech that we have never had it so good were to be believed.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble Baroness cannot avoid bringing party politics into everything. That is her style. However, research has shown that small businesses pay a greater proportion of their outgoings in non-domestic rates and have been calling for action. We have taken that action. I should have thought that that would satisfy most people, even if we cannot satisfy the noble Baroness.
The noble Baroness referred to the changes in the billing regulations. We shall change the regulations in early January and have been consulting local authorities. I hope that the noble Baroness is in a minority of one in not rejoicing in the regulations. Nevertheless, I commend them to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

King's College, London Bill [H.L.]
A message was brought from the Commons that they have come to the following resolution to which they desire the concurrence of this House—
That the Promoters of the King's College London Bill [Lords] may, notwithstanding anything in the Standing Orders or practice of this House, proceed with the Bill in the present Session; and the Petition for the Bill shall be deemed to have been deposited and all Standing Orders applicable thereto shall be deemed to have been complied with;
That if the Bill is brought from the Lords in the present Session, the Agents for the Bill shall deposit in the Private Bill Office a declaration signed by them stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill which was brought from the Lords in the last session;
That, as soon as a certificate by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office, that such a declaration has been so deposited, has been laid upon the Table of the House, the Bill shall be read the first and second time (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read) and shall be ordered to be read the third time;
That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during any previous session.
House adjourned at twenty minutes past nine o'clock.

  Serbia: Annulment of Election Results
  Serbia: Annulment of Election Results
  UNIDO
  UNIDO
  Israeli Defence Minister's UK Visit
  Israeli Defence Minister's UK Visit
  Haifa University Nuclear Weapons Seminar
  Haifa University Nuclear Weapons Seminar
  Iran and Iraq: Anglo-Israeli Counter-proliferation Measures
  Iran and Iraq: Anglo-Israeli Counter-proliferation Measures
  Anglo-Israeli Defence Relationship
  Anglo-Israeli Defence Relationship
  Israeli-Palestinian Relations
  Israeli-Palestinian Relations
  Justice and Home Affairs Council, 28th and 29th November
  Justice and Home Affairs Council, 28th and 29th November
  War Pension Changes
  War Pension Changes
  Crown Court Defendants Found Guilty: Corrected Statistics
  Crown Court Defendants Found Guilty: Corrected Statistics
  Child Labour: UNICEF Allegations
  Child Labour: UNICEF Allegations
  Family Health Services: White Papers
  Family Health Services: White Papers
  Bus Drivers: Use of Mobile Phones
  Bus Drivers: Use of Mobile Phones
  London Buses: Safety Enforcement
  London Buses: Safety Enforcement
  Sulphur Dioxide Emissions: Protocol Ratification
  Sulphur Dioxide Emissions: Protocol Ratification
  Executive Agencies
  Executive Agencies
  Fishery Offences: Prosecutions
  Fishery Offences: Prosecutions