Sitting of 20 February 1996

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

    Budget Growth
    Mr. Brazier: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the projected rate of growth of the social security budget over the next three years; and what will be the proportion of gross domestic product spent on social security. [14350]
    The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Peter Lilley): Social security spending is expected to increase by a little more than 1 per cent. a year in real terms. That is less than half the rate at which gross domestic product is expected to grow, so there is every prospect of social security taking a declining share of GDP in future.
    Mr. Brazier: Does my right hon. Friend agree that we have managed to achieve that in the face of considerable pressures because we have taken sensible and practical steps to contain both expenditure and overheads, unlike Labour Ministers who talk about thinking the unthinkable and would open up again the benefit system to asylum appellants who have been refused asylum?
    Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend is right that the success in containing the prospective growth in social security is the result of the reforms that we have introduced over the past three years, almost every one of which has been opposed by the Opposition, including the latest sensible changes to stop abuse of the welfare system by bogus asylum claimants. The Opposition have opposed every change that we have made. When they talk about thinking the unthinkable, they are thinking about spending yet more public money. Every proposal that they put forward is an increased expenditure plan.
    Ms Hodge: Does the Secretary of State agree that an important part of the social security budget is the cold weather payments system? Will he explain how it can possibly be fair to my constituents in Barking that the eligibility for cold weather payments of those who live on one side of Lodge avenue is measured against the temperature at Heathrow, but the eligibility of those who live on the other side is measured against the temperature at Stansted? Is it fair that one group of tenants should have received cold weather payments four times this year while tenants on the other side of the road have had them only once?
    Mr. Lilley: There are always difficulties wherever borderlines are drawn. That is true of cold weather payments and of the education system. Many Labour spokesmen find it difficult when the good schools are on one side of the borderline and they live on the other.

    Pensioner Households
    Lady Olga Maitland: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many pensioner households had (a) a fridge, (b) a car, (c) a freezer, (d) a telephone and (e) a television in 1979; and how many have these items currently. [14351]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Oliver Heald): Based on the data for 1992–93: 99 per cent. have a fridge compared with 88 per cent. in 1979; 50 per cent. have a car or van compared with 34 per cent. in 1979; 78 per cent. have a freezer compared with 32 per cent. in 1979; 93 per cent. have a telephone compared with 57 per cent. in 1979.
    The current figures do not record televisions, but virtually all pensioner households have one.
    Lady Olga Maitland: I thank my hon. Friend for telling us the excellent news about pensioners' increased standards of living, which is largely the result of the success of occupational pensions. Does he agree that that success would be seriously eroded should pensions ever be invested by trade unions as proposed by the Labour party? Pensioners' nest eggs would be whittled away to nothing.
    Mr. Heald: My hon. Friend, as usual, makes a valid point. The fact is that when Labour talk about thinking the unthinkable, it means spending more money. Its stakeholder proposals mean higher premiums and lower returns on its second tier stakeholder pension scheme. The Labour party has always wanted to get its hands on private pensions. Harold Wilson and the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) wanted to and now Labour's Front-Bench spokesmen want to.
    Mr. Ashton: Is it not a fact that those pensioners have fridges, cars and telephones because they bought them in 1979 when they were in full-time employment? Their fridges are now 16 years old and they cannot afford to replace them under this Government.
    Mr. Heald: The hon. Gentleman obviously was not listening, because I said that pensioners did not have those goods in 1979 and now they do. He may recall that under the last Labour Government pensioners' incomes increased by 5 per cent. and that under this Government they have increased by almost that amount every year.
    Mr. Anthony Coombs: Returning to the realms of reality rather than the fantasy world in which the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) lives, will my hon. Friend confirm that nowadays no fewer than eight out of 10 pensioners have incomes outside the state pension? One of the great achievements of the past 15 years is that £600 billion has been put aside in occupational pensions funds, which is the greatest expenditure in Europe. Does my hon. Friend agree that

    159
    high rates of inflation are a great danger to savings and that if there were another Labour Government—God forfend—we would see high inflation such as we had in the 1970s which would destroy the value of pensions?
    Mr. Heald: My hon. Friend is correct. The Government's policy is to maintain the value of the basic state pension, encourage private provision and target extra help at those most in need. It is no coincidence that we in this country have invested £600 billion in private pension schemes—which is more than the rest of the European Community combined.
    Mr. Wicks: Does the Minister accept that there is another nation in old age which is not revealed by the camouflage of his complacency: a nation of pensioners who are often poor? Does the Minister accept that many frail elderly people are sitting at home on this freezing cold day afraid to put on their fires because of the high heating costs? Why does the Department make so few forecasts that can trigger cold weather payments when in 1991 Ministers assured us that forecasts were being introduced so that we could reassure the old that they could keep their fires on? Is it not time that pensioners in Britain were no longer old and cold?
    Mr. Heald: The hon. Gentleman should check his facts because, since November, expenditure on cold weather payments has tripled to £60 million.

    Asylum Seekers
    Mr. Alan Howarth: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to ensure that potential asylum seekers arriving at ports of entry are made aware of the rules affecting their entitlement to social security benefits. [14352]
    Mr. Lilley: The availability of social security benefits should not be a factor in the decision to apply for asylum.
    Mr. Howarth: Is it not incumbent on the Government to ensure that advice is provided to potential asylum seekers arriving at ports of entry that if they do not apply for asylum there and then they will not be eligible for benefits and, under the Government's new policy, will be at risk of absolute destitution? What advice are the Government providing to new arrivals before they reach immigration control? Will the Secretary of State comment on the immigration service's reported insistence that posters, which were provided voluntarily and which would have alerted people to that situation, must not be sited in either the arrival halls or in the buffer lounges at Heathrow?
    Mr. Lilley: The hon. Gentleman should be aware that, when people present before the immigration authorities in this country, they are asked their reasons for coming here. If they say that they have come to take refuge and to claim asylum, they will be able to pursue that claim and they will be entitled to benefit while doing so. However, if they manage to convince the immigration authorities that they are coming to this country as students, business men or visitors and they go on to persuade them that they have the means to support themselves, that they have somewhere to stay and that they have a ticket to return
    160
    home, and they subsequently enter the country and change their story, they will have no right to benefit. I do not think that there is anything wrong with that.
    The hon. Gentleman—who is a friend of mine, if not in the technical sense—did not seek asylum in the Labour party in the hope of deriving any benefits. Genuine asylum seekers entering this country do not come here for our benefits: they come here for our freedoms.
    Mrs. Roe: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Government should not encourage bogus asylum seekers who are not escaping persecution but are merely interested in benefits? Taking his point further, does he also agree that that sums up the position of the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth)?
    Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend is right on all points. We cannot have a system whereby people who are asked a straightforward question but who give a series of misleading answers are subsequently able to get benefits because they change their story. That must be wrong, and cannot be acceptable to anyone.

    Pensioner Incomes
    Dr. Twinn: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what has been the change in real terms in the income of the average pensioner since 1979; and if he will make a statement. [14354]
    Mr. Heald: Between 1979 and 1993, the average incomes of pensioners increased by 51 per cent. in real terms.
    Dr. Twinn: Does the Minister agree that the rise in pensioners' incomes is a tribute to those who manage the private pension funds, and that the funds are managed in the best interests of pensioners? Does he share my concern that if these funds were to be diverted, perhaps to Government-controlled funds, they would be shifted to lower return projects—maybe projects of a political nature—that would cut pensioners' incomes? Is this not the policy of the Labour party?
    Mr. Heald: Since 1980 the private pension funds in this country have had a real rate of return of more than 10 per cent. over inflation. The same is not true of state-run schemes, such as that in Singapore where the return is only 2 per cent. A pensioner in this country, who contributes the same amount as a pensioner in Singapore, will have four times the pension when he retires. That is why the Government are committed to the private sector schemes and why our achievement is so immense in this area.
    Mr. Chris Smith: Why does the Minister simply talk about average pensioner incomes—as he always does? Does he not realise what has happened to those pensioners below the average, especially those who receive nothing but the state pension or income support? Has he seen the Institute for Fiscal Studies report that shows that income inequality for pensioners rose dramatically after 1979, and that the richest 10 per cent. of pensioners have five and a half times as much income as the poorest 10 per cent.? Is it not time to stop being complacent and to do

    161
    something to help the millions of pensioners who are below the average, and who are falling further behind under this Government?
    Mr. Heald: As usual, the hon. Gentleman has carping complaints to make about the Government's performance. All pensioners have benefited under this Government. That is why the real rate of pensioners' income has increased substantially, even in the bottom quintile. The hon. Gentleman should look at the proposals that he is making—what is described as thinking the unthinkable. Hon. Members should look at the cost that the Labour party would impose on British industry and on pensioners, particularly with the stakeholder proposals. The hon. Gentleman should not get away with this, and he should not write letters to The Times withdrawing his ideas two months after he has had them.

    Invalidity Benefits
    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many claimants are currently receiving invalidity benefits; at what cost to the Exchequer; what was (a) the number and (b) the costs in real terms (i) 10 years ago and (ii) 20 years ago; and if he will make a statement. [14355]
    The Minister for Social Security and Disabled People (Mr. Alistair Burt): As at November 1995, just under 1.7 million claimants were receiving incapacity benefits at the short-term—higher—and the long-term rates, compared with invalidity benefit recipients of 450,000 in 1975–76 and just under 850,000 in 1985–86. The estimated annual cost to the Exchequer, as at last November, is £7.7 billion. At current prices, this cost was £1.9 billion 20 years ago, and was £3.7 billion 10 years ago.
    Mr. Greenway: I congratulate my hon. Friend on introducing the Social Security (Incapacity for Work) Act 1994 which ensures that benefits go to those who are too unfit to work. Will he confirm that this measure, along with all the other measures introduced by the Secretary of State, has been opposed by the Labour party? Does not thinking the unthinkable mean spending the unaffordable?
    Mr. Burt: Yes, it is very easy to express a wish, in general terms, to control public expenditure, but to actually take the steps to do so is rather hard—a clear difference between the quality of the Government and the noise of the empty Opposition.
    Mr. Foulkes: I shall suggest something to the Minister that may receive all-party support—the suggestion by Pensioners' Voice and other such organisations that the Government might organise a campaign to encourage the take-up of benefits to which people are entitled. Will the Minister give serious consideration to introducing such a national campaign, as suggested by Pensioners' Voice, Age Concern and a large number of other voluntary organisations?
    Mr. Burt: Nine pounds out of every £10 of benefit is already taken up. Extensive take-up campaigns are run by welfare organisations and others and at the end of the day only the smallest benefits are not taken up. We cannot
    162
    force people to take up benefit. The hon. Gentleman's concern for pensioners and the elderly would be rather more genuine had he protested more seriously about the inadequacies of the cold weather payment scheme when his party was last in Government and the damage that inflation caused them in the past.
    Ms Lynne: Is the Minister aware that many people are denied incapacity benefit because the medical test is not strictly adhered to? In some cases, instead of being asked to pick up a kettle or saucepan of 1.7 litres, people are being asked to pick up an overcoat, and instead of picking up a tray, they are being asked to pick up a box of tissues. They have lost benefit and only won it back on appeal. Will the Minister look at the matter urgently?
    Mr. Burt: The medical test is kept under strict scrutiny. There is a monitoring system to make sure that it is applied consistently. To date, Ministers have received no complaints such as the one that the hon. Lady has offered the House today. I am happy to receive a letter from her, but it is a matter of great concern to us that the medical test is applied consistently and well. I am pleased that the hon. Lady now appreciates the need for change in the medical test and perhaps she will be more supportive of the scheme in future.

    Child Support Agency
    Sir Mark Lennox-Boyd: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many cases the Child Support Agency has refused to consider because they were already the subject of a court order. [14356]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Andrew Mitchell): Parents with a court order for child maintenance cannot come to the Child Support Agency for an assessment unless the parent with care is in receipt of a relevant benefit. They can, however, ask the court for a variation in the court order if they believe that maintenance under the existing order is inadequate. There is no business need for the agency to record how many child maintenance applications it receives and which it cannot consider for that reason.
    Sir Mark Lennox-Boyd: Will my hon. Friend consider the plight of many women, such as my constituent Mrs. Dennett, who may enjoy the so-called benefit of a court order in favour of their children and cannot be helped by the CSA, but whose former husbands have paid no money for 10 years or more under that court order? They are thereby effectively denied justice by the system. Is it not ironic that a system that was invented to help such women in reality denies them justice?
    Mr. Mitchell: My hon. Friend has raised with great diligence the case of his constituent, Mrs. Dennett, and I have looked carefully at it. Her court order precedes the establishment of the Child Support Agency, so she is unable to take advantage of it. Her difficulties demonstrate clearly why the House was right to introduce the Child Support Agency. I am afraid that she will have to return to the court to seek a variation as she is able to do under the system.
    Mr. Llwyd: Can the Minister assist me? My constituent put in an appeal to the CSA appeal tribunal three months ago. After going through the details, he was advised to withdraw the appeal. The chairman replied that he would not allow the appeal to be withdrawn despite a month's notice having being given. What is the authority under law for that proposition and where is it based in common sense?
    Mr. Mitchell: If the hon. Gentleman will write to me about the case, I shall certainly seek to assist him. There has been a significant improvement in the performance of the appeal system. Some 60 per cent. of appeals are now cleared within 13 weeks, but if he will write to me about the specific details that he raises, I shall ensure that he receives a proper answer.

    Occupational Private Pensions
    Mr. Dunn: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many retired persons were in receipt of occupational private pensions in (a) 1979 and (b) 1995. [14357]
    Mr. Heald: In 1979, 43 per cent. of pensioners were in receipt of an occupational pension. By 1993, the figure had increased to 62 per cent.
    Mr. Dunn: While I welcome the significant increase in the number of those who enjoy occupational pensions, does my hon. Friend agree that those who receive occupational pensions and those who hope to enjoy them in future will be frightened out of their wits by the prospect of their pension funds—some £600 billion—being run for and by Government with the aid of the trade unions, which is Labour party policy?
    Mr. Heald: If a Government forced individuals into a state second-tier scheme which had a stakeholder corporation involving the trade unions, they would kill the private sector that produces a rate of return far higher than that of state schemes. The contributions would have to be higher, as they are in Singapore and Australia. In Singapore, the contributions are double those in Britain and in Australia they are 12 per cent. In fact, it would be more take than stake.
    Mr. Denham: To return to the real world, does the Minister recall the £1 million Government advertising campaign in 1988 that encouraged people to leave occupational pensions and the state earnings-related pension scheme? Will he admit that more than 1 million people who left their employers' schemes are now having to have their pensions reviewed at enormous cost? Does he admit that more than 3 million low earners left the state earnings-related pension scheme for personal pensions and that many of them will be worse off as a result? Will he admit that the difference between his side and ours is not about the benefit of funded pensions, but that the Conservatives waste people's hard earned savings and Labour will not?
    Mr. Heald: One needs only to listen to the hon. Gentleman to realise that he prefers the state to the private sector. I certainly have no regrets that large numbers of
    164
    people now have personal pensions that will help them in retirement. That will mean more security for them than they had before.
    Mr. Spring: Can my hon. Friend tell me how much money is tied up and invested in the United Kingdom funded private pensions? Can he confirm that the significant total is greater than for all the other European Union countries put together?
    Mr. Heald: Yes. The European Community countries other than the United Kingdom have £480 billion invested between them. This country has £600 billion.

    Benefit Disregards
    Mr. William O'Brien: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to review the disregards involving housing benefit and council tax for people who are in receipt of occupational pensions; and if he will make a statement. [14358]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Roger Evans): We have no plans to change the treatment of occupational pensions in claims for housing benefit and council tax benefit.
    Mr. O'Brien: The Minister will be aware of my constituent, Mr. Rogers, who receives 81p a week mine workers pension. Government regulations have meant that he has had a 57p cut in housing benefit and a cut in council tax benefit of 16p, which has left him with 8p a week. He has now been notified by Yorkshire Water that the service charges for water and sewerage will increase at twice the rate of inflation. That leaves my constituent owing money to the Government because of their activities. When will the Government stop driving pensioners, especially people on occupational pensions, deeper and deeper into the poverty trap?
    Mr. Evans: I am not aware, at this moment, of the facts—[Interruption.] Well, I have not got a letter. I shall be happy to look into the matter that the hon. Gentleman specifically raises, and will write to him.
    The hon. Gentleman's general question highlights the difficulties of income-related benefits. The Labour party's apparent proposals for a guaranteed minimum pension would simply extend means testing, with the difficulties that the hon. Member mentioned.
    Mr. Patrick Thompson: When my hon. Friend the Minister considers disregards for housing benefit and council tax rebates, will he bear in mind the representations that I have received from war pensioners and war widows in Norwich? Is my hon. Friend aware that Labour-controlled, mean-minded Norwich city council is refusing to apply disregards to those war pensioners, in spite of the example set by neighbouring councils and the majority of other councils?
    Mr. Evans: I am so aware and, no doubt, my hon. Friend's constituents will take due note.

    Child Support Agency
    Mrs. Bridget Prentice: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he expects to respond to the second report of the Social Security Committee on the performance and operation of the Child Support Agency (HC 50 of Session 1995–96). [14359]
    Mr. Andrew Mitchell: We are giving very careful consideration to the recommendations in that thoughtful and thorough report and plan to respond to the Committee by the end of March.
    Mrs. Prentice: I thank the Minister. However, does he share the concern of the Public Accounts Select Committee that the CSA has set its target at 75 per cent. and that, in other words, it expects to get only three out of four cases right? Does he believe that that is an acceptable level of assessment and does he agree that the public will not have trust and confidence in the CSA until it sets its targets at a higher rate?
    Mr. Mitchell: Many measures have been taken to try to improve the agency's accuracy, which was woefully low. There has been a steep increase this year. The Secretary of State set a demanding target of 75 per cent. and that target has been exceeded for the past two months. We shall set exacting targets for next year as well.
    It is important to remember that accuracy standards for the Child Support Agency mean accuracy to within 1p. Given that, I hope that the hon. Lady will join me in welcoming the steep increase in accuracy that has taken place in the past year. We intend to ensure that that continues in the coming year.
    Mr. Tredinnick: When my hon. Friend the Minister responds to the report, will he consider the cases of those who have been wrongly assessed by the Child Support Agency? Does he agree with me that the absent parent should be repaid in full immediately when such cases come to light?
    Mr. Mitchell: We shall respond carefully to the Select Committee's report, and certainly bear in mind what my hon. Friend says. The House will note, however, that the Committee welcomes the progress made by the agency. It considers that the agency has shown that it can implement significant changes quickly and efficiently. It confirms the view that the agency is here to stay. Indeed, it refers to the growing acceptance that the agency will be a permanent feature of British life. There has been a steady improvement in the agency's performance over the past year. There needs to be, and we intend to ensure that that improvement continues over the next year.
    Mr. Sutcliffe: Is it not true that the Child Support Agency has lost public confidence and that it is not meeting requirements? Does the Minister agree that the best thing would be to scrap the agency and start all over again?
    Mr. Mitchell: That is not the policy of either of the two main parties in the House. The hon. Gentleman may have noted that on page 92 of the Select Committee's report it published the evidence of one of the leaders of the campaign against the agency. That gentleman earns
    166
    £517 a week and believes that it is right for him to pay only £15 a week in respect of his child. Nothing could more clearly illustrate why the House was right to set up the agency.

    Sick and Disabled People
    Mr. Duncan Smith: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the total spending on long-term sick and disabled people and their carers; and what were the equivalent figures for 1978–79 and 1985–86. [14360]
    Mr. Burt: Estimated expenditure on benefits for the long-term sick and disabled and their carers for 1995–96 is over £20 billion. The equivalent real terms figure for 1985–86 is £8 billion; and for 1978–79, £5 billion.
    Mr. Duncan Smith: Does my hon. Friend accept that many of my constituents and those of other hon. Friends throughout the country will be concerned about the way in which spending in this area has burgeoned at a time when so many people in society are supposed to be getting better in terms of their health? Does he agree with me, and will he take up the point, that we shall drive hard to ensure that money in this area is spent solely on those who genuinely need it?
    Mr. Burt: My hon. Friend makes a sound point about the changes that had to be made to incapacity benefit. We were trying to ensure that a rapid rise in the growth of expenditure was brought under some control to ensure also that benefit went to those who really needed it.
    The Government seek to encourage independence in terms of benefit policy for other long-term sick and disabled people. We want to establish a simpler system with fewer overlaps which will be delivered by modern means, and one that will reduce the scope for fraud and abuse. The Government are well on their way to producing such a system.
    Mr. Wigley: Will the Minister please avoid the pressure coming from the right wing of the Conservative party further to cut expenditure on disabled and long-term sick people? Will he consider especially the position of those people who are receiving care in the community help through local authorities, in circumstances where the local authorities are having severely to cut expenditure because of the grant settlements of the coming year? Will the Minister ensure that no one who needs that help will be either unable to pay for it where excessive charges are being made, or will lose out because local authorities cannot provide the necessary services?
    Mr. Burt: I recognise the hon. Gentleman's genuine concern. To suggest to the Government, however, that they have been in any way mean towards the long-term sick and disabled is just untrue. We are keen to ensure that benefits go to those who need them, and that they are used appropriately. As I said in my main answer, total spending on the long-term sick and disabled shows a 280 per cent. increase in real terms. That is equivalent to £350 per person in the United Kingdom.
    It is important that our record on sick and disabled people is recognised. We introduced the disability living allowance, which brought about 500,000 people into

    167
    benefit for the first time. Our record of care and concern for those who really need it is outstanding, and strongly supported by the Government. Community care, an innovation introduced by a Conservative Government, is the responsibility of the Department of Health. I shall ensure that the hon. Gentleman's concerns are made known to my colleagues in that Department. Our record on disabled people, especially with the passing of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, which was the most important step in anti-discrimination legislation affecting disabled people that this country has ever seen, is second to none.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Does my hon. Friend accept that carers are the unsung heroes of community care, and that not only do they save the public—the taxpayer—a great deal of money but in many cases they sacrifice their own career and private life to look after somebody who is ill, whether that person is disabled, mentally ill or mentally handicapped, and that carers deserve more consideration from society, whether by way of assistance or fiscal incentive? Will my hon. Friend see what he can do to encourage and help this very deserving section of our community?
    Mr. Burt: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The entire country owes a debt of gratitude to all those who care for and look after others. It is a debt that the Government have recognised uniquely. In the middle of 1986, about 30,000 people were in receipt of invalid care allowance. Owing to changes made by the Government, 318,000 people are now in receipt of that allowance. In 1979, the Labour Government spent £4 million on invalid care allowance, whereas, this year, this Conservative Government will spend £609 million. That shows how much Conservatives value carers, and that is what we have done for a most deserving and important group of people.
    Mr. Bradley: Despite what the Minister has said, there have been real cuts in benefits for disabled people—estimated to be at least £90 million this year and £250 million in 1998–99. One cut that is causing particular concern is the withdrawal in July of the mobility component from disability living allowance for adults and children in hospital. Many organisations, such as Mencap, have made representations to hon. Members, because they know what an enormous difference the benefit makes to people in that situation. Without it, disabled people are deprived of their mobility. Does the Minister not recognise that that cut is particularly pernicious? Will he think again and protect the 16,000 people who live in NHS hospitals or in residential homes, so that their quality of life does not suffer?
    Mr. Burt: The situation is not quite as clear cut as the hon. Gentleman makes out. The benefit is designed to assist independent mobility. Those for whom the restriction is intended are in long-term care, where independent mobility is difficult and where in many cases the NHS is designed to pick up other care needs. We also have evidence that the benefit was used for a variety of other purposes beyond that of independent mobility. Some six times as many people today receive support for their care and mobility needs than in 1979. It is a difficult area. It is out to the Social Security Advisory Committee for
    168
    consultation, and we shall look at its responses carefully. The complaint that the hon. Gentleman made is not quite as easy to substantiate as he might think.
    Mr. Tracey: My hon. Friend amply made the case that the Government are providing far more than was provided in 1979. Does he agree, however, that there is still too much duplication between the community health trusts and social services in local authorities? Will the Government do something to begin to bridge the gap and, indeed, to save resources in that sphere?
    Mr. Burt: As I said in an earlier answer, the Government intend to ensure that there are as few overlaps as possible. My hon. Friend has put his finger on an aspect that could be examined, and I shall draw it to the attention of my colleagues in the Department of Health. We are determined to ensure that the system is fair and simple, and that benefit goes to those who need it most. Our record in that regard is exceptionally good.

    Child Support Agency
    Mr. Win Griffiths: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security in how many cases the CSA has stopped maintenance orders for children made by the courts in the course of administering the provisions of the Child Support Act 1991. [14361]
    Mr. Andrew Mitchell: The agency will normally become involved in cases with court orders only when a relevant benefit is involved. The agency has no business need to record the number of such cases.
    Mr. Griffiths: May I draw the Minister's attention—as I already have—to the case of a constituent of mine? The Child Support Agency went to court last May, and asked for her £30-a-week payment under a court order to cease. She is still not receiving any money under the child support arrangements. Thankfully, her former husband has started to make the payments voluntarily, but how many other mothers may have had their court orders stopped by the CSA, and may still be receiving no child support nine months later?
    Mr. Mitchell: I am aware of the hon. Gentleman's concern about that case, but, like him, I understand that the position has now improved.
    The real issue is the amount of enforcement that takes place, and the effectiveness of that enforcement. The system is clearly becoming better, but it must be seen to be fair. The hon. Gentleman will be interested to learn that 5,000 deduction of earnings orders were issued last month, and that 2,500 liability orders have been issued in the past year. That is partly why the flow of money to mothers is increasing; we are determined that it should continue to do.
    Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the Child Support Agency has tracked down no fewer than 117,000 feckless fathers who have shoved off without paying for their children? Does he agree that men who father children should expect to pay the costs of bringing them up, rather than leaving it to other families, who have their own responsibilities?
    Mr. Mitchell: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The CSA has traced 120,000 absent parents; moreover, there has been a steep increase in its ability to establish paternity. That is very important to parents with care who are not receiving the maintenance to which they are entitled. My hon. Friend will also have noted that, in some 77 per cent. of cases taken on by the agency, the mother is receiving no maintenance at all. We are determined to ensure that the agency's work continues in the way described by my hon. Friend.
    Ms Eagle: No one will object to the idea that fathers have a duty to pay for their children, but does the Minister agree that it is just not good enough to set a target of only 75 per cent. accuracy? That means that one in four of the agency's assessments are plain wrong.
    Mr. Mitchell: The hon. Lady obviously did not listen to the earlier answer in which we spoke of the challenging increase in targets. The agency is not only increasing the accuracy of its maintenance assessments to within 1p—that is vital—but simplifying the maintenance formula to speed up the process of arriving at an agreed assessment, and to make it more accurate.

    Social Security Expenditure
    Mr. Pawsey: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the total amount spent on social security in the United Kingdom; and what was the equivalent figure in 1989. [14362]
    Mr. Lilley: Spending on social security in Great Britain is expected to be around £87 billion this year, as against £59 billion in today's prices in 1989.
    Mr. Pawsey: Does my right hon. Friend agree that such an increase in social security spending is not sustainable? Will he consider two possibilities: first, redoubling his efforts to control social security fraud; and secondly—and perhaps more importantly—taking a leaf out of the book of the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, and establishing a national advisory committee to report to the House on social security matters?
    Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend is right. We cannot let spending on social security increase at the rate that it has done since the system was established under Attlee in the late 1940s—5 per cent. a year on average in real terms. My reforms, however, have already reduced the rate of expenditure growth to little more than 1 per cent.—which is only half the growth of national income—so having been the principal engine of rising costs and tax, it is now set to leave scope for lower taxes as long as we avoid the pitfalls of the Labour party's proposals.
    Mr. Pike: Will the Secretary of State accept that it is still a scandal that, in 1995, 46.1 per cent. of the social fund, which is to help people most in need in this country, goes on administration? Should we not have a scheme that gets more money to those people, who are so desperately in need?
    Mr. Lilley: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is right to cut running costs. When it was announced about a week ago that we were hoping to cut
    170
    such costs by a quarter, the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman said that it could not be done, that it would be damaging and that it would cause waste and delay. The Evening Standard today, however, has got hold of a letter to him from the shadow Chief Secretary, which says:
    "Following Peter Lilley's announcement last week that he is seeking to axe his department's running costs by a quarter, I have been making some informal enquiries about the feasibility of his plans.
    The advice I am getting … suggests that savings in running costs of this magnitude are perfectly feasible, given the opportunities for efficiency gains and the scale of investment already undertaken."
    It is time for the hon. Memeber for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) to withdraw his statement that that would go past breaking point and cause longer delays, more mistakes and worse service.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Martyn Jones: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 20 February. [14380]
    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. Jones: Does Prime Minister accept Sir Richard Scott's judgment that the Attorney-General was personally at fault? Given the collapse in public confidence in him, is it not time that the right hon. Gentleman started referring to him as unassailable?
    The Prime Minister: I have to say that I believe that the Attorney-General acted perfectly properly throughout this whole affair.
    "How the narrative of fairness can be fabricated into an indictment of the Attorney-General, I fail to follow."
    Mr. Mackinlay: It is because he is an awful lawyer.
    The Prime Minister: I am sorry to hear what the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) below the Gangway says because I was quoting the defence counsel at the Matrix Churchill trial.
    Mr. Matthew Banks: On a different point, does my right hon. Friend recall the dark days of nationalised industries when they cost the taxpayer £50 million a week? Is he able to contrast that with the position now where, in the private sector, they contribute £50 million to the national coffers? Is that not about five new schools a week? Is that not something that the Labour party simply has not grasped?
    The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend about the advantages of private ownership over public ownership. We have seen this in a wide range of areas over many years. I have no doubt that, wherever appropriate, things are better handled in the private sector and should be in the private sector rather than in the public sector. That is so in terms both of the experience

    171
    that we have of the way in which the private sector operates and of the general demand to make this country competitive, with the lowest possible tax regime consistent with that.
    Mr. Blair: Does the Prime Minister agree with the specific finding of Scott that Ministers agreed to the sale of non-lethal weapons to Iraq, and agreed not to inform Parliament and the public, and that that failure was deliberate and in breach of their duty of ministerial accountability? Does he agree with those specific findings of Scott or not?
    The Prime Minister: If the right hon. Gentleman takes time to read the whole of Sir Richard Scott's report, he will see that Sir Richard accepts that Ministers regarded not that there was not a change of the guidelines but that there was an interpretation of the guidelines against changing circumstances. Sir Richard accepts explicitly that Ministers regarded the relaxed interpretation
    "as being a justifiable use of the flexibility believed to be inherent in the Guidelines."
    [Interruption.] I am sorry that hon. Members are laughing. That is Sir Richard's view and I agree with him on that point.
    Mr. Blair: The point that I am asking the right hon. Gentleman about comes before that about whether the guidelines were changed; it is whether he is prepared to accept the specific findings in D4.42 of the Scott report that Ministers agreed to the sale of non-lethal weapons to Iraq, that they agreed specifically not to tell Parliament, and that that agreement in Sir Richard's words was "deliberate" and in breach of their duty of ministerial accountability. Rather than the general, will he answer that specific? Will he tell us whether he agrees with that paragraph of the report—yes or no?
    The Prime Minister: What Sir Richard says is that the reason for the decision not to inform Parliament was because of a concern that to do so
    "might be detrimental to British trading interests"—
    that is to say, jobs. That is a direct quotation from what Sir Richard had to say.
    Mr. Blair: That is simply not the case. Sir Richard gives specifically the reason why Ministers did not tell Parliament and the public. He said:
    "the overriding and determinative reason was a fear of strong public opposition".
    That is a quite different matter.[Interruption.] Does not the matter go to the very heart of parliamentary democracy? On virtually every page of the report there are details of answers that are inaccurate, untrue, misleading. Is no one going to take responsibility for that? Have no Conservative Members got the courage? Does none of them want to hold Ministers to account? If the Prime Minister cannot answer and say whether he agrees with the paragraph—it is his report, which he set up, on which he spent money—the Conservative party and the Conservative Government will remain knee deep in dishonour.
    The Prime Minister: On the question of defence exports, let me remind the right hon. Gentleman—he may
    172
    not like it—of what the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) said when he was a Minister. That spokesman for a Labour Government said:
    "It has been the policy of successive Governments not to reveal information on the supply of arms to individual countries."—[Official Report, 10 June 1974; Vol. 874, c. 396–97.]
    Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that that was the Labour Government's position? He huffs and puffs with false indignation. If he had a shred of honesty himself, he would admit that the two central charges levied at the Government repeatedly by the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) and his hon. Friends have been found to be untrue and should be withdrawn.
    Sir Michael Marshall: Does my right hon. Friend agree that in an increasingly competitive and turbulent world, this or indeed any Government must take great care in the way in which they balance national interest and the promotion of British exports? Is it not clear that my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary and my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General are honourable Members and that they should be given some degree of trust and flexibility, as the Labour party would give its Ministers if it were in government? The right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) should have a care.
    The Prime Minister: I think that there are some substantive points, which tend to get lost amidst these exchanges, and I shall tell the House what the important ones are. We did not export lethal weapons to Iraq, unlike many other countries. No British troops in Kuwait faced British weapons, and our guidelines for the export of defence equipment to Iran and Iraq were at least as strict as, and probably stricter than, those of any other country. That is the reality that the British nation needs to understand, and that the Opposition seek to hide.
    Mr. Ashdown: Can the Prime Minister think of any other organisation in Britain, except perhaps British Gas, in which senior executives who had been criticised by an independent inquiry in the terms in which his Ministers have been criticised by Scott would be allowed by the boss to hang on to their jobs?
    The Prime Minister: Again, the right hon. Gentleman resorts to partial understanding. Whether that is a tactic or whether the right hon. Gentleman really understands only partially, is something that neither I nor the House has ever been able fully to understand. If the right hon. Gentleman reads the whole report, he will realise that the central charges levied, the charges that required me to set up the report so that they could be impartially examined and laid to rest, have been impartially examined, and have been laid to rest.
    Mr. Peter Ainsworth: Did my right hon. Friend see the report in The Sunday Telegraph this week about the relative competitiveness of British industry? It was entitled, "Britain advances, Germany retreats". Does my right hon. Friend agree that our vital interests lie in free trade, free markets, free enterprise policies and freedom from the social chapter and from the other Euro-meddling so beloved by the Labour party?
    The Prime Minister: I am entirely happy to agree with my hon. Friend about the economic circumstances

    173
    that we now face, as a result of the difficult and often unpopular decisions that we have taken to put the British economy on an even keel. We now have the best platform for sustained prosperity, and for sustained growth with low inflation, that we have seen for many years. Nobody doubts that, except those who are professionally inclined to wish to doubt it, because it conflicts with their interests—and they sit on the Opposition Benches.
    Mr. Alan W. Williams: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 20 February. [14381]
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Williams: Does the Prime Minister agree with Sir Richard Scott that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury again and again, in letter after letter to hon. Members, misled Parliament about the arms sale policy to Iraq, and consistently failed to discharge his duty of ministerial accountability to Parliament?
    The Prime Minister: No; I have made the point before, and I shall reiterate, that I do not believe that my right hon. Friend deliberately misled Parliament. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I do not believe that. The requirement to inform Parliament is clearly set out in "Questions of Procedure for Ministers"—and the reason why the House knows that is that I arranged for its open publication for the first time. Unlike previous Governments, who were asked to publish it by their own Back Benchers, I published it without being asked. Previous Governments were asked, and declined to publish.
    Mr. Butcher: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, as well as having the fullest support of the British people, both in Ulster and on the mainland, in pursuing the peace initiative, he also has the widespread support of the British people both in Ulster and on the mainland in vigorously pursuing those who wish to damage the civil liberties of the people of London and elsewhere, through a bombing campaign? Does he further agree that those who wish to damage the civil liberties of our people should not be too surprised if their own civil liberties are damaged in the pursuit of justice?
    The Prime Minister: We are determined to maintain law and order and democratic principles and we shall continue to seek and hunt down those responsible for the recent attacks. We give the highest priority to the security of citizens on the mainland and in Northern Ireland. Each of the three bombs in the past 10 days or so has been the act of men callously unconcerned
    174
    about the death or injury of innocent people—perhaps people who have had no connection whatsoever with the ancient feuds and disputes of Northern Ireland. I do not believe that they either deserve or will receive sympathy and understanding from any decent citizen, either here or in Ulster.
    Mr. Foulkes: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 20 February. [14383]
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave a few moments ago.
    Mr. Foulkes: Does the Prime Minister agree that, since the Chief Secretary has repeatedly given inaccurate and misleading information to Parliament and to the public, he is the ideal man to present the Tory party's tax plans at the next election?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman may be interested to know that my right hon. Friend will be presenting tax plans from this Dispatch Box after the election also.

    EU Unemployment
    Sir Teddy Taylor: To ask the Prime Minister if he will raise at the next meeting of the European Council the level of unemployment in the EU. [14384]
    The Prime Minister: I shall take every opportunity to protect the United Kingdom's flexible labour market and falling unemployment against the damaging effects of the social chapter. No other significant European country has an unemployment rate lower than ours.
    Sir Teddy Taylor: As high unemployment is becoming a tragic nightmare on the continent of Europe—by comparison with the UK, where unemployment has been falling consistently—will the Prime Minister do all in his power to persuade his colleagues in Europe to abandon illogical policies such as fixed exchange rates, which are simply a recipe for job destruction?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is quite right about the relative levels of unemployment. While unemployment fell here last week to a five-year low, in most similar large European countries it is either growing or remaining static at a much higher level than here in the United Kingdom. As the president of the European Monetary Institute said just the other day, other member states should use the United Kingdom as their economic model. I am delighted to have his support—that is what I have been saying to my colleagues on the European Council for several years now.

Mental Health Services
3.32 pm
The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Stephen Dorrell): With permission Madam Speaker, I wish to make a statement about the future of mental health services.
On 24 August last year, my hon. Friend the Minister for Health wrote to health authority chairmen informing them that I had asked the regional directors of the national health service to review the progress being made in their regions towards the delivery of modern and effective mental health services. I am today publishing the conclusions of that process, and I am announcing the further steps that the Government intend to take to deliver their commitment to a comprehensive, high-quality mental health service.
The background to those developments is familiar to the House. In this and every other developed country during the past 40 years, health and social service authorities have been replacing asylum-based care with a broad spectrum of facilities that are better able to meet the needs of the individual person suffering from a mental illness. At its best, a modern mental health service represents a dramatic improvement in the quality of care available to its patients.
Too often, however, the reality has not matched up to that potential. That is why we decided last June to make the improvement of mental health services a key medium-term priority for the NHS, and it is why I initiated the review process last August.
Today's report of that review confirms that every health authority now has in place plans that commit it to deliver a comprehensive mental health service. Sixty-eight health authorities have demonstrated that that objective will be achieved during the next financial year; the remaining 33 authorities have plans to deliver a comprehensive service, which will take longer to complete.
The review shows that health authorities are planning to increase the resources committed to mental health services next year by £53 million. Regional directors will continue to monitor the delivery of those plans at local level.
It is important to be clear about the objective. The phrase "care in the community" has too often been taken to mean the abandonment of residential care for mentally ill people. That is not, and never has been, our policy. That is why, today, I am publishing a document entitled "The Spectrum of Care", which sets out in clear language the range of services that constitute a modern mental health service. It restates our commitment to provide treatment at home for those patients for whom that is the right answer. For that group, a range of services needs to be provided by the NHS and local authority social services departments, very often in partnership with local authority housing departments.
The document also sets out the range of other facilities that are needed to complete the required spectrum of care. Those are: day hospitals and day centres, to provide for those who need care during the day; access to out-of-hours specialist services and crisis accommodation to meet short-term crisis need; acute hospital beds, to meet the needs of those with acute mental health problems; and 24-hour nursed residential places, to meet the long-term residential needs of those with severe and
176
enduring mental illness. All those facilities are needed, together with a range of secure units for those who need treatment in a secure environment.
Today's document makes clear the Government's commitment to deliver not simply care in the community, but the full spectrum of care required for a comprehensive modern mental health service.
Along with that overview of the full spectrum of care, I am publishing a report commissioned by my Department on 24-hour nursed care. The report states that there is accumulating evidence of a need for residential nursing care for a relatively small group of so-called new, long-stay clients. The Government accept that such facilities have a valuable role to play in the spectrum of care and will look to health authorities to ensure that their plans for the future provide for that need to be met.
Although it is understandable that much of the comment about the state of mental health services concentrates on the pattern of service provision, a crucial requirement is effective collaboration between the wide range of agencies that contribute to an individual's care. That is why the Government are committed to the full implementation from 1 April of the care programme approach. That requires the preparation for each patient under the specialist services of a plan of care based on an assessment of his needs, which names a key worker to be responsible for ensuring that that care is delivered.
From next year, the NHS is under an obligation to audit the successful delivery of that approach. Today, I am publishing an audit pack designed to assist with that process. It has been developed by the NHS executive with the Royal College of Psychiatrists and constitutes an important reinforcement of our commitment to quality in those services.
A further reinforcement of quality is provided by the Government's decision to introduce a patients charter on mental health. A charter does not, of course, by itself improve standards. It does, however, state clearly the standards that the individual patient can expect to receive from the statutory services and it therefore constitutes a benchmark by which the quality of the service can be judged.
Today, I am publishing a draft charter and I am asking for comments by 26 April. The draft charter proposes standards for timely access to specialist services. It sets out the entitlement of a mentally ill person to have his illness explained; to have the effects of medication explained; and to be given information about advocacy and support groups, together with information about what to do in an emergency. It also establishes that a patient who needs continuing care outside hospital will not be discharged from hospital until appropriate arrangements, including a care programme, have been put in place.
There has recently been disquiet about the arrangements that allow hospital managers to discharge patients from detention under the Mental Health Act 1983, possibly against the advice of their responsible medical officer. It is clearly essential that a detained patient must have the right to have his case reviewed, and the Mental Health Act 1983 provides for mental health review tribunals for that purpose. The powers of the managers operate in parallel with those of tribunals, to allow a more informal consideration of individual cases. The operation of the system is currently being considered by the Royal College of Psychiatrists and the National Association of

177
Health Authorities and Trusts, with the Mental Health Act Commission. We expect to receive their advice in the spring of this year, and the Government will reach and act on a conclusion on the basis of that advice.
Finally, I come to the question of money. The Government are firmly wedded to the provision of sufficient resources to allow the continued improvement of our mental health services. In December, I announced the creation of a mental health challenge fund within the NHS, and I am today publishing the detailed criteria for applications to that fund. The fund will deliver £20 million-worth of improvements and development in addition to the £53 million of growth money that health authorities already intend to spend on mental health next year.
In December, I also announced an increase of £11 million in the mental illness specific grant for 1996–97, and a further £9 million for 1997–98, subject to parliamentary approval. Of that £20 million, £4.5 million will provide for a 10 per cent. increase in the existing specific grant programme; £2 million will virtually double the provision for the homeless mentally ill initiative; and the remaining £13.5 million will be committed to a target fund to assist local authorities working in areas where the strains on the mental health services are greatest. I have written today to the local authority associations, inviting them to join us in drawing up the detailed criteria for those schemes.
The combination of an extra £20 million through the mental illness specific grant; an extra £20 million through the NHS challenge fund; £53 million from health authorities' own plans; and a contribution of at least £2 million from local authorities' own resources, will bring the growth money for the mental health services under this programme to more than £95 million.
Our national health service has made great strides in improving mental health care. I pay tribute to all those working in health and social services who have achieved so much for mentally ill people. We are committed to supporting them, to securing the best standards for users and carers and to providing a service of which the public can be proud. The measures that I have announced today constitute a substantial contribution to the progress that we need to make. I commend them to the House.
Ms Harriet Harman: Is it not the case that the Government have failed to ensure that mentally ill people get the care that they need when they need it, and that the price is paid by mentally ill people themselves and by the communities in which they live? Does not the Government's failure cause needless suffering to those who are unfortunate enough to have mental illness? Does not the failure cause despair to the relatives of mentally ill people, as they struggle to cope, and further demoralise the doctors, nurses and therapists—the mental health care team—who are stretched to breaking point as they run services that are stretched beyond breaking point?
Has not the Government's failure caused a breakdown of public confidence in our mental health services, as people hear report after report of assaults, murders and suicides committed by people who are desperately ill? Have not the Government created the worst of all worlds in relation to mental illness: too few beds for the mentally ill in hospital, inadequate and patchy services for the mentally ill in the community and staff shortages in hospitals and community services?
178
I join the Secretary of State in his tribute to the excellent work that has been done by the health care team. However, why does he not mention the chronic staff shortages in mental health services? Those services cannot run without the staff and, too often, they simply are not there.
The Royal College of Psychiatrists says that there are shortages of psychiatrists at all levels, consultants, registrars and junior doctors. So the risks increase, but no mention of that was made by the Secretary of State. Is he not aware that the Royal College of Nursing reports that there are now fewer community psychiatric nurses than there were five years ago, despite a huge increase in the number of mentally ill people in the community? Why was there no mention of that?
Is the Secretary of State not aware that in some areas whole wards are closed because sufficient staff nurses cannot be found to run them? Does not he realise that the huge turnover of very seriously ill patients in hospital means that doctors and nurses are providing only a custodial rather than a caring, quality service, with not enough time to talk to and get to know their own patients, let alone the patients' relatives? Will the Secretary of State admit and act on the problem of hospital bed shortages? Half of all acute beds for people with mental illness problems have been cut in the past 15 years.
Why does the Secretary of State announce £95 million of growth money when it is nothing of the sort? Why does he not admit to the House that it is existing money already allocated by health authorities? Does he not realise that people are fed up with hearing the Government announce new money or growth money and raising their hopes, only to have those hopes dashed when they discover that it is not growth money at all? Is not that yet another reason why this Secretary of State, like his predecessors, is not trusted by the public or by those who work in the national health service?
Does not the Secretary of State realise that his failed mental health policies mean patients committing offences and ending up in our police stations, courts and prisons? The number of mentally ill prisoners has increased by more than half in the past four years.
Is not the real story about Government failure on mental health revealed in a devastating secret report from North Thames regional health authority? The report shows that none of the health authorities in that region is providing a comprehensive adult mental health service and that two thirds of the health authorities will not be providing a comprehensive adult mental health service by 1997, even if they achieve all their existing plans and even if they take additional action.
The report, which the Government have kept secret, talks of organisational turbulence. It talks of a surfeit of first priority issues, pressures on staff and a range of attitudes, from anger to despair to desperation. It does not appear in the pack that comes with the Secretary of State's statement.
How can any hon. Member have confidence in what the Secretary of State tells the House when he has admitted that one in three health authorities will fail to deliver comprehensive adult mental health care services by the end of 1997? He says that 68 out of 110—he lists them in the pack—will provide a comprehensive adult mental health service by the end of 1997, but how can we believe him when we know that the list includes

179
authorities such as Brent and Harrow, and Camden and Islington, whose own region says that they will not achieve a comprehensive service by then even if they achieve all their existing plans and even if they take additional action?
Will the Secretary of State accept Labour's challenge and introduce a four-point action plan to begin to tackle the problems of mental health? Will he halt further psychiatric bed closures until community services are in place? Will he ensure not only the immediate implementation in all areas of the care programme approach, but greater consistency in its development? Will he take action to address staff shortages? Will he change the mental health funding allocation formula, so that over time cash ends up going where it is most needed?
Against the background of Government failure, the Health Secretary's statement offers no new money, no new rights and no new policy directions. What he has done is to identify needs. We know what the needs are; we have known them for years. He has identified the service provision that is needed; we have known about that for years. He has not taken action to tackle the problems. The Tories have failed for years on mental health and they have failed again today.
Mr. Dorrell: I remind the House that my statement covered a range of subjects on which the Government have announced some proposals. We have announced proposals to redefine the spectrum of care; to heighten the commitment to nursed beds in the health service; and to strengthen our commitment to the care programme approach; and we have announced the publication of a draft charter for mental health patients. I talked about the changes that are being considered in managers' powers to release detained patients. I listened to what the hon. Lady had to say in her questions on my statement. I did not hear her mention a single one of those policy announcements. She picked on only one—that relating to money.
On money, the hon. Lady said that because today I announced the proposals that the health service was bringing forward for the use of next year's growth money, that somehow did not constitute new money. I am announcing how the health service will use the extra resources that have been voted to it, to improve the quality of health services during the next financial year. That is apparently not a subject in which she is interested.
The hon. Lady also spoke about staff shortages. I have good news for her on that. She said that the Government had nothing to say about increasing the staff commitment to mental health services.
Ms Harman: The right hon. Gentleman did not say anything about it.
Mr. Dorrell: The hon. Lady says that I did not say anything about that in my statement. That is true; my hon. Friend the Minister for Health announced some changes on that yesterday, when we announced the creation of 114 specialist registrar posts in the psychiatric disciplines, specifically to address the concerns that she raised. I would have hoped that she might welcome that.
The hon. Lady also spoke about an alleged decline in the number of community psychiatric nurses working in the health service. I have the figures with me. In 1984—
180
I am not taking a date that is party politically convenient, but I will measure the numbers over a decade—there were 1,180; and in 1994, the most recent year for which figures are available, there were 4,760—an increase in community psychiatric nurses in post of 153 per cent. I would have hoped that she might welcome that.
Then there are the points that the hon. Lady made in her press release today, in which she said:
"I am calling on the Secretary of State to publish the true information on the state of mental health services in every region of the country."
She did not anticipate that I would publish the list in the document that was published at 3.30 pm. I am sorry to have shot her fox.
The hon. Lady also challenged me to agree to her four-point plan. I have had the advantage of a few minutes in which to think about her four-point plan. [Interruption.] I did not need them, as she rightly says, because all the points are covered in the statement.
The hon. Lady called for a halt to further psychiatric bed closures until appropriate community services have been developed. That has been the policy of the Government for some years. Existing bed space is not closed until acceptable alternative provision is in place. In my statement, I announced immediate implementation of the care programme approach in all parts of the country. I would have hoped that she might welcome that.
I have already mentioned action to address staff shortages. The press release also refers to
"changing the mental health funding allocation formula so that over time cash ends up going where it is most needed".
That is precisely the principle that underlies the funding changes that I announced today. The hon. Lady might have done better to listen and react to my statement rather than read out her press release.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: I am now seeking very brisk questions and answers.
Mr. Roger Sims: As it happens, I met my local community health service trust at lunchtime and I know that its welcome for the prospect of increased resources will be reflected throughout the country. The important thing is how and where those resources are spent. My right hon. Friend listed a number of facilities that can be provided on a local trust basis, but others can be provided more effectively and efficiently over a wider area. Will he encourage trusts to co-operate with each other and co-ordinate their activities in providing those facilities, and ensure that resources are distributed accordingly?
Mr. Dorrell: I am happy to see such co-operation develop within the health service—and my hon. Friend knows that that is occurring. The key co-operation is between health authorities, to ensure that the needs of a particular locality are met. When those needs are best met by trusts in co-operation, I am strongly in favour of local partnerships developing.
Mr. Simon Hughes: I welcome the Secretary of State's statement as far as it goes. However, I should like him to inform the House

181
when he will be able to guarantee three things. When can he guarantee that there will be satisfactory co-ordination of health authorities and social services departments throughout the country? He is aware that that problem must be addressed. When can he guarantee that there will be 24-hour access to emergency admissions, to local support or to community care—the three options that a mentally ill person may need? Most importantly, when can he guarantee that urban areas—which have four times the incidence of mental illness compared with elsewhere—will be allocated the resources that they need statistically, as opposed to being dependent on the £13.5 million beauty competition that is the additional challenge funding that he announced today? It may mean that the places that are most in need will continue to go without.
Mr. Dorrell: Co-ordination between statutory authorities is part of the assessment for which regions are responsible when deciding whether comprehensive mental health services will be delivered. I agree with the hon. Gentleman: it is important to ensure that statutory agencies are co-ordinated properly. In the absence of that proper co-ordination, action will be taken to improve the situation. I agree with what the hon. Gentleman said about emergency access. In a supporting paper published today, the hon. Gentleman will find the statement:
"We intend to include a standard in the final document on the mental health patients charter on access to out-of-hours services and views on that will be particularly welcome".
The hon. Gentleman is quite right when he says that out-of-hours access is important. We intend to include details of our proposal in the final version of the mental health patients charter.
As to the hon. Gentleman's proposal that we should revise the capitation formula that governs all health service financing, he will know that it is subject to regular review. With regard to the funding mechanisms that I announced today, I shall ensure that specific local issues are addressed. We must not wait until the generality of funding delivers that objective. It is important to target resources at that issue, reflecting the priority that health and social services managers now give to improving the quality of services.
Sir Gerard Vaughan: My right hon. Friend's statement will be welcomed very widely. Will he confirm that today he has announced a new, high priority that will be on-going not only for mental patients in the community, but for mental patients across the board?
Mr. Dorrell: Yes, I can give my hon. Friend exactly that assurance. My right hon. Friend and predecessor announced last June that the health service intended to make the maintenance of high-quality mental health services a key priority. That is not a passing fad. Mental health services are a key part of an integrated national health service, and the management of the health service and the political responsibility for it will continue to reflect that long-term priority.
Dr. Jeremy Bray: The Secretary of State has accepted the difference between comprehensive plans and effective delivery. He has put forward specific proposals—such as the audit arrangements and the patients charter—to improve the
182
quality of service. Does he agree that, with the best will in the world, long-term developments are needed in the care of the mentally ill, which cannot possibly be completed within two years? For example, first, I refer to the training of staff in the mental health services, from a basically institutionally based system to a community-based system. Secondly, I refer to the reabsorption of those who have been mentally ill into the normal life of the community. Finally, I refer to the effectiveness of mental health services being very much conditioned by public understanding of the nature of mental illness.
Mr. Dorrell: The hon. Gentleman is right on all three counts. He takes a distinguished interest in this subject, as the chairman of the all-party group. He has placed emphasis on the importance of training all the professional staff responsible for delivering that service, which I echo. That is why my hon. Friend the Minister for Health announced the extra commitment to the psychiatric medical disciplines yesterday, and it is something that will also be followed up in the training plans for the nursing profession.
The hon. Gentleman raised three important issues, and I agree with all of them. The Government will carry them all forward. The distinction between plans and delivery is one that I take seriously. It is important that the commitment to the standards that I have announced today is monitored year by year by the health authorities and by the social services inspectorate—and that is what will happen.
Mrs. Edwina Currie: Does my right hon. Friend realise that in his statement he has rendered a large chunk of my novel out of date? I am very pleased about that. In his efforts, will he also take into account the need to train general practitioners, to ensure that their services for mental illness are also improved? Is it not those people who will most likely first come into contact with someone who is depressed or suicidal, who will have to cope with their family and, in the long run, who will most likely be involved in their continuing care in the community?
Mr. Dorrell: I am sorry to have rendered my hon. Friend's novel out of date, but I am not sure that I am ministerially responsible for that. I agree with what she said in relation to the development of the role of general practitioners in the mental health services. That is a specific aspect of the work that my hon. Friend the Minister for Health is doing, on the development of primary health care. It is important that the role of general practitioners in that service is not allowed to cut across or to undermine the important role played by the specialist services in meeting the requirements of those whose needs are genuinely specialist in nature.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Is the Secretary of State aware that the provision of extra registrars will be welcome, but without access to secure beds and to proper psychiatric staffing care, they are not as effective as they sound? Further, is he aware that the need is urgent for elderly constituents who are faced with the management of a psychotic and possibly dangerous member of their family? Those psychiatric services are falling apart now—not next week—and they need help now. What will he do to ensure that it is provided as rapidly as possible?
Mr. Dorrell: The hon. Lady raised the subject of secure bed space, which is interesting because that is an aspect of the delivery of mental health services that has been developed substantially in recent years. In the early 1970s, the Glancy report target for medium secure beds was set at 1,000, but by 1979 nothing had happened. The figure is now 1,200 beds provided, with more to follow. We are providing the medium secure beds that the health service needs, and that is something that marks today's health service apart from the health service of a decade ago.
Mr. David Martin: Is my right hon. Friend aware that those providing mental health services in Portsmouth just would not recognise as an accurate picture of those services the catalogue of slurs produced by the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman)? He mentioned in his statement that a key worker would be available for every individual—and that he would be known as that individual's key worker. Will he ensure that the individual's neighbours and family know who that key worker is, so that those who are receiving mental health treatment in the community know that someone can be contacted immediately to sort out any problems?
Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend makes an important point. The support of the carer working within the community is often critical in the delivery of a proper service to a mentally ill person. The support of neighbours who may not be formal carers can also be valuable. My hon. Friend will recognise that his proposal and the terms in which he makes it may raise concerns about confidentiality, but I agree with him that the name of the key worker is potentially important, not just to the mentally ill person but to that person's carer and community supporters.
Mrs. Alice Mahon: If the Minister really believes that every bed that has been closed in the psychiatric sector has been replaced with a good community care place, why are so many mentally ill people in prison and homeless? Does he recall my sending him a letter about the closure of the psychiatric unit at Northowram hospital, from GPs who said that they already faced frequent difficulties in admitting psychiatric patients to Halifax general hospital? Has he any idea how much worse it will be when the psychiatric unit closes? Will he please put a moratorium on all bed closures until decent places are provided in the community?
Mr. Dorrell: The reason why I do not agree with those who say that we should have a moratorium on all bed closures is that it would create the implication that the existing pattern of provision in some of the old asylums should be sustained. I want to ensure that we provide an improved, modern mental health service that more accurately meets the needs of patients.
Mrs. Mahon: What is the Secretary of State doing about that?
Mr. Dorrell: The hon. Lady asks what I am doing about that. I announced in my statement the publication of a document on nursing home beds for those suffering from severe and enduring mental illness. All the professional opinion now suggests that it is a better way of meeting the residential care needs of those with such
184
illnesses. Surely to goodness we should be able to agree across the Floor of the House that those needs are better met in that way than by keeping open a model of care which was a great breakthrough in the 19th century, but which is no longer regarded as a proper way of caring for people with a mental illness.
Mr. David Congdon: Does my right hon. Friend agree that when mentally ill people are discharged into the community, it is crucial not only that are they provided with suitable housing by housing authorities, but that there is good liaison between housing and social services to ensure that social services provide proper support? Will the measures that he has announced today improve liaison and co-ordination not only between health authorities and social services, but with housing departments?
Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend is quite right to remind the House of the importance of the relationship with local authority housing departments. I specifically referred to that in my statement. In regard to people being discharged from hospital with continuing needs from the mental health services, I set out the proposition contained within the mental health patients charter, that people in those circumstances should not be discharged from hospital until proper arrangements have been made with the relevant authorities, so that those continuing mental health needs will be met.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Does the Minister agree that, for a comprehensive care in the community policy to succeed, much attention and assistance must be given to individual carers who look after a great number of people in the community? Is he aware of the plight of some of those people? One of my constituents informed me that she was on incapacity benefit, but the moment she became an individual carer, the Department of Social Security took the book away and she lost not only her incapacity benefit, but her entitlement to rent and all other benefits. The net result is that she is worse off as a result of taking on an onerous task. She has saved the state £300 a week and she is getting absolutely nothing.
Mr. Dorrell: I prepared for a number of different questions for this session, but I confess that I did not include mastering the rules governing the social security system. I shall take the hon. Gentleman's question away and write to him with an answer.
Mr. John Marshall: As one who has instigated a number of Adjournment debates on the care of the mentally ill, I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement and the fact that he has listened to the concerns expressed in those debates and outside the House. I also welcome the commitment to new long-term clients, because there has been an inadequate number of beds, especially in London, for the mentally ill. Can my right hon. Friend tell the House how Barnet health authority will be affected by his proposals?
Mr. Dorrell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his support for the announcements that I have been able to make, and I agree with him about the need to ensure that there is a proper understanding of the case for a full spectrum of care. Community care should be seen as part

185
of that spectrum and not as the totality. I hope that my hon. Friend will accept that his emphasis on the need to ensure the provision of residential places was covered in my statement.
Barnet health authority has a clear commitment and a plan to deliver—as the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) will see—a comprehensive mental health service. As my hon. Friend knows, Barnet health authority has to come from further behind than some, so it would be unrealistic, as the hon. Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray) pointed out, to suggest that all the problems can be resolved overnight. The commitment is there to ensure that those services will deliver our objectives, and my hon. Friend's constituency will be able to benefit from the spending programmes that I announced this afternoon.
Mr. Jim Callaghan: I listened carefully to the order of priorities that the Secretary of State has just given to the House. Is he aware that one of my constituents, Mrs. Worsley, while on her way to work at the University of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology at 7 o'clock in the morning a fortnight ago, was savagely attacked by a man with a mental illness? As a result of the attack, she had nine stab wounds in her back, one stab wound in the back of her head and a gash in her face that required nine stitches. In the light of that and other savage and unprovoked attacks, what assurances can the Secretary of State give to Mrs. Worsley and other victims that that will not happen again?
Mr. Dorrell: Of course, no Secretary of State can give to any citizen the assurance that there will never be an attack in the street again, whether perpetrated by somebody suffering from mental illness or not. I can assure the House that we are specifically considering the discharge arrangements provided by hospital managers to ensure that there are adequate safeguards to command public confidence. In the context of the services that I mentioned today, that is the right assurance to give to the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. David Atkinson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the initiatives and extra resources that he has announced today will be warmly welcomed by the voluntary organisations involved with the mentally ill—MIND, the National Schizophrenia Fellowship and the Schizophrenia Association of Great Britain? Will my right hon. Friend ensure that the views of those voluntary organisations will be specifically sought by the Department of Health when it consults on the draft patients charter and on the management of the release of detained patients, which he has announced today?
Mr. Dorrell: The answer to my hon. Friend's question is yes. I will ensure that they are consulted and that their views are heard and noted.
Dr. Lynne Jones: If everything is to be as the Secretary of State has explained, there will indeed be a dramatic improvement in mental health services. I wish the Secretary of State well, because I think that he believes in what he said. I hope that he will forgive some of us who are a little cynical about whether he has put the means to achieve his aims in place.
186
In Birmingham, there is 0.5 per cent. growth in the health budget and most of that will be spent on the waiting list initiative. The mental health trust in south Birmingham has been asked to make 3 per cent. efficiency savings and it has been reported that a project, which linked mental health services and the police, so that they could try to intervene when mentally ill people were arrested, will have to fold.
Will the Secretary of State give an assurance that when projects are funded through the challenge initiative and are successful, funding will continue and resources will be made available to ensure that the good practice that has been learnt can be disseminated throughout the country?
Mr. Dorrell: I entirely agree with what the hon. Lady said about the importance of disseminating good practice.
If the health authority in the hon. Lady's constituency is above target and, therefore, saw only half a per cent. growth in last year's settlement, it is precisely to that health authority that the challenge fund is addressed. The fund will provide resources that will allow the service to continue. The money will not be withdrawn after one year.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his statement and on the direction that he is giving to mental health provision. Does he agree, however, that long-term care for the more severely and permanently mentally disabled needs to be provided not on a district general hospital site but on a site that is more conducive to therapy and the provision of long-term care? I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Marshall) agrees with me on that. It is important that hospital sites that are ideal for what my right hon. Friend has in mind are not sold off prior to the new initiative being fully considered by him, with perhaps the new provision being provided on such sites. If he does not put his foot down, those sites may be sold.
Mr. Dorrell: I agree with my hon. Friend that it is important that any new provision that is planned within a health authority area is planned, so far as is possible, at a location that suits the type of service that is to be delivered. That will often not be on the district general hospital site, and my hon. Friend is right about that. It will not necessarily follow from that conclusion that the right place is on what was traditionally the mental health site of the asylum. It may be that a third site is more appropriate. My hon. Friend is right in his principle that new facilities should be located in the place that is judged to meet the needs for which the facilities are designed.
Ms Mildred Gordon: Members of my local community health council tell me that they are worried about the increasing trend to treat all mental illness in elderly patients, especially those over the age of 75, as dementia, even when it might be a different form of mental illness. Will the Secretary of State assure us that steps will be taken to ensure that elderly patients who have mental or physical illness receive the specialist treatment that they need, rather than being dumped into a geriatric unit?
Mr. Dorrell: I entirely agree with the principle that the condition of any patient, whether young or old, should be accurately diagnosed and that the clinical care given

187
should be appropriate for the clinical condition. I am sure that the House will not wish me to be drawn into questions of clinical judgment between one condition and another, something on which I am entirely unqualified to offer a comment.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. We shall now move on. No doubt we shall be returning to this subject in due course.

Point of Order
4.19 pm
Mr. Nick Ainger: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Since the rather optimistic statement made yesterday afternoon by the Secretary of State for Transport about the Sea Empress incident off the coast of my constituency, you may be aware that there has been a substantial turn for the worse. It appears that at least 50,000 tonnes of oil has spewed into the sea in a most environmentally sensitive area.
Bearing that in mind, I learnt this morning that those concerned have been unable successfully to salvage the Sea Empress because of lack of availability of the correct type of tug. That issue was taken up in the Donaldson inquiry in May 1994. Unfortunately, due to the Government's complacency, it has not been dealt with. Have you had any sign from the Secretary of State for Transport, Madam Speaker, that he intends to make another statement on those serious matters?
Madam Speaker: I have sympathy with the point that the hon. Gentleman makes, and I was glad that he was able to ask a question following the statement yesterday. I know that he is concerned about the matter as it concerns his constituency, to which he rightly needs to pay every attention, but I have not heard that the Minister is seeking to make yet another statement.
I shall give a little advice, if I may. If the hon. Gentleman believes that the matter is urgent—and I have no reason to doubt that it is not—perhaps he will seek a private meeting with the Minister without delay.
Mr. Ainger: I have already done so.
Madam Speaker: I am delighted to hear that.

Journalistic Corrupt Practices
4.19 pm
Mr. Quentin Davies: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make it an offence, subject to a public interest defence, for any newspaper or other media outlet to obtain or seek to obtain, by means of any financial or other inducement, information from a third party concerning the private affairs of an individual; to prohibit the making by newspapers and other media of payments, whether on a contingent basis or otherwise, to any actual or prospective witness in any court proceedings in return for information relating to those proceedings; and for connected purposes.
My Bill targets two aspects of cheque-book journalism that I believe to be obnoxious and altogether inconsistent with the principles which should underlie a free society.
The first of those activities is the practice of paying informers for information that relates to the personal and private lives of other people. The House will be familiar with the practice of which I speak. The victims, the targets of such journalism, are sometimes people who are already prominent in the public eye—members of the royal family, football stars, television stars, politicians—or sometimes people who are merely related in some way to people in those categories. Sometimes the victims are ordinary citizens. Recently, they have included headmasters, vicars and, in a case in my constituency, a land agent—a man who was not by any stretch of the imagination a public figure; nor had he ever had any aspiration to be so.
It is fair to say that the section of the tabloids which indulges in such journalism has moved steadily further down this particularly unattractive road, advancing at first hesitantly, perhaps a little shamefacedly, but in the absence of any constraint and in the presence of the commercial pressures of competition, such activity has gone further and further until the point has been reached—indeed, it has been exceeded—when Parliament should consider whether it is right to bring a legislative halt to it.
I emphasise that my Bill is not a privacy Bill. The House has had opportunities in the past to consider the merits of a privacy Bill, and I trust that we shall have an opportunity to do so in the future. My Bill would not make it illegal to reveal private or personal information without the consent of the subject: it would simply make it illegal to pay third parties for such information.
There are three reasons why it is important to move in that direction. First, the substantial amounts that can be made from some tabloids for such stories are, of course, an inducement to unscrupulous people to create the circumstances in which they can make those large sums of money. It is, perhaps, a little sinister that the informants or informers who have benefited from these large payments have sometimes included prostitutes and pimps. One sees all too easily where the trend in that sector of journalism may lead unless some constraint is applied.
Secondly, the practice of corrupting the friends, acquaintances, employers, employees or former employees, disgruntled former lovers or spouses of individuals to procure private information is generally associated with the practices of secret police in a totalitarian society. It is unacceptable that practices from which the populations of eastern Europe have now been
190
emancipated after the end of the nightmare of communism should continue quite respectably to be applied in Great Britain by certain people in what used to be called Fleet street.
The practices to which I refer have replaced the ancient crime of blackmail. Our Victorian predecessors in the House rightly decided that blackmail was a heinous offence, and created stringent penalties; nowadays, however, no one but a lunatic would, if in possession of private information that might embarrass someone, think of risking criminal charges by engaging in blackmail. The rewards involved in taking the information to a Fleet street tabloid would be much greater, and the risks non-existent.
The second part of my Bill targets the different but equally obnoxious journalistic practice of paying, or reaching agreements to pay, witnesses in legal proceedings, perhaps on a contingent basis. A bad example came to light recently in the West case. This corrupts the whole system of justice, because it is essential to the good conduct of justice that witnesses are genuinely objective. No witness can be considered objective if he or she stands to make a small fortune—or perhaps a large fortune—depending on the verdict in the case. That practice, too, should be rapidly stopped.
I hope that the House will give my Bill a Second Reading, and will feel that the points that I have raised deserve detailed examination in both Houses, and I hope that, before too long, appropriate counterweights to unacceptable journalistic practices will be on the statute book.
4.26 pm
Mr. Denis MacShane: I oppose the Bill: not so much the second part, which concerns the payment of witnesses in judicial proceedings—that is probably a matter for judges and the courts, rather than one that merits a new law—but certainly the first part.
The hon. Member for Stamford and Spalding (Mr. Davies) ranged far and wide, but if I understood his argument correctly—I had not heard it advanced before—he was saying that it was all right to denigrate, blackmail or put someone down if the information is given free of charge, but not if money, lunch or some other journalistic inducement is offered.
We all know Humbert Wolfe's famous rhyme:
"You cannot hope to bribe or twist, thank God! the British journalist. But, seeing what the man will do unbribed, there's no occasion to."
I note that the Bill attacks journalistic corrupt practices. Perhaps it should have been entitled "Proprietors' Corrupt Practices", "Editors' Corrupt Practices" or, indeed, "Politicians' Corrupt Practices". I note that the distinguished chairman of a midlands newspaper group, the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler) has just entered the Chamber; I am sure that he would wish to take the rap for any activity that his journalists might get up to.
At the end—or, rather, the beginning—of the day, the proprietor is responsible. Journalists are hired hands: the proprietor—or, perhaps, the editor who ranks directly

191
below him—must stand in the firing line. I do not think that we need new laws to attack journalism. If anything, we need new laws to strengthen it. As Wordsworth put it,
"Milton! thou shouldst be living at this hour"—
in this instance, to report on the fen of stagnant waters that is the government of our country at present.
I must declare a small interest, as a former president of the National Union of Journalists. The NUJ has a code of conduct which precisely covers the point made by the hon. Member for Stamford and Spalding. Clause 5 of the NUJ code of conduct states:
"A journalist shall obtain information, photographs and illustrations only by straightforward means. The use of other means can be justified only by over-riding considerations of the public interest. The journalist is entitled to exercise a personal conscientious objection to the use of such means."
However, had the hon. Gentleman suggested writing that into law, I would have opposed it because it is not the law's business to say what journalistic practice should be.
It would be better if that code of conduct were on every newsroom wall and part of the training of every journalist, and if all the journalists' and editors' organisations—not just the NUJ—were strengthened in our newsrooms instead of weakened. The hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire (Mr. Ashby), who knows not a little of this problem, will be aware that the newspaper which traduced him has destroyed the NUJ, ripped up the code of conduct and denied its journalists the right to uphold that code. In past years he has voted continuously for measures to destroy the rights of journalists and their union to enforce that code.
The law that we need is not so much one to attack journalists and to protect private lives as one to extend the public sphere of information. One reason why there is such obsessive interest in private affairs is that debate and news about the public sphere in this country is constrained by the culture of secrecy and news manipulation. That was shown recently with the publication of the Scott report, where the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts), a junior Minister in the Deputy Prime Minister's Department for Conservative propaganda, was given advance sight of the report well before other hon. Members—in flagrant violation of the Prime Minister's assurance that only senior Ministers would see it—in order to prepare a media spin defence.
192
The Bill refers incessantly to money. When we have a Government who know the price of everything, but the value of nothing, because their only sense of public duty is to manage the media, we cannot fail to understand why some journalists scurry after private tittle-tattle. The public sphere of information is so limited that journalists turn to private gossip.
I hope that, after his Bill is given due consideration, the hon. Member for Stamford and Spalding will support a freedom of information Act proposed by Labour Members. Before that, I shall give him and his supporters the opportunity to offer support on Friday week, when my hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Mr. Touhig) will introduce a private Member's Bill on whistleblowers which will give members of the public working for organisations the right to extend the public sphere of information. If the hon. Member for Stamford and Spalding and his supporters are serious about his Bill, I hope to see them in the Division Lobby on Friday week, supporting my hon. Friend's important 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. Quentin Davies, Mr. Julian Brazier, Mr. Alex Carlile, Sir Patrick Cormack, Mr. Nigel Forman, Sir Archie Hamilton, Mr. Andrew Hargreaves, Mr. David Hunt, Sir Jim Lester, Mr. Giles Radice, Mr. Richard Shepherd and Mr. Clive Soley.

Journalistic Corrupt Practices
  JOURNALISTIC CORRUPT PRACTICES
  Mr. Quentin Davies accordingly presented a Bill to make it an offence, subject to a public interest defence, for any newspaper or other media outlet to obtain or seek to obtain, by means of any financial or other inducement, information from a third party concerning the private affairs of an individual; to prohibit the making by newspapers and other media of payments, whether on a contingent basis or otherwise, to any actual or prospective witness in any court proceedings in return for information relating to those proceedings; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 10 May and to be printed. [Bill 61.]
Orders of the Day

  Social Security
  4.34 pm
  The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Peter Lilley): I beg to move,
  That the draft Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order 1996, which was laid before this House on 31st January, be approved.
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): I understand that with this it will be convenient to discuss the following motions:
  That the draft Social Security (Contributions) (Re-rating and National Insurance Fund Payments) Order 1996, which was laid before this House on 31st January, be approved.
  That the draft Social Security (Contributions) Amendment Regulations 1996, which were laid before this House on 31st January, be approved.
  That the draft Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order 1996, which was laid before this House on 31st January, be approved.
  That the draft Social Security (Incapacity for Work) (General) Amendment Regulations 1996, which were laid before this House on 31st January, be approved.
  That the draft Child Support (Maintenance Assessments and Special Cases) and Social Security (Claims and Payments) Amendment Regulations 1996, which were laid before this House on 31st January, be approved.
  Mr. Lilley: This is an important opportunity to debate the central issue facing every developed country: how to control welfare spending. Since the establishment of the welfare state after the war, social security spending has grown by 5 per cent. a year faster than inflation—twice as fast as national income. Social security has been the principal engine of rising taxes and burdens on employers. On average, it costs every working person £15 every working day.
  Over the past three years, I have carried through a widespread programme of reform, and as a result I have reduced the planned growth of the welfare budget to little more than 1 per cent. a year. That is half the underlying growth of the economy, and will allow scope for lower taxes, lower burdens on employers and more job creation. The Labour party has opposed virtually all the reforms that I have introduced so far. It even attacked the £1 billion extra savings that I announced following the Budget. Moreover, every measure that it has proposed has involved extra spending.
  Next year, planned spending on social security will be £90 billion, which is below the planned spending that I announced two years ago. It will include £3 billion to finance increased benefit rates. Benefits are increasing by 3.9 per cent., yet inflation has fallen to just 2.9 per cent. That is the largest percentage uprating for four years, even though inflation is running at the lowest level for more than two years.
  In curbing spending, the fight against fraud remains my top priority. In the past, we had no way in which to measure the scale of fraud, so I developed a method of establishing the extent of fraud by detailed investigation of a representative sample of claimants. We are reviewing fraud benefit by benefit. The first survey showed that, in income support and unemployment benefit alone, fraud was costing the taxpayer more than £1.5 billion a year. I introduced a new strategy to prevent and deter that fraud.
  194
  The second review, which was of housing benefit, showed that fraud and errors were costing £1 billion a year. I am developing a comprehensive strategy to tackle housing benefit fraud. First, I have earmarked an £8 million challenge fund to develop local authority innovation against fraud. Secondly, I am giving local authorities greater incentives to pursue fraud. I am setting tougher targets with higher rewards and stiffer penalties. Thirdly, we will allow local authorities to make housing benefit cheques payable to landlords to stop tenants absconding with them. For all new claims and those who change address after October 1996, we will pay housing benefit, like most other benefits, wholly in arrears. That will limit overpayment of benefit and will increase recovery.
  As well as cracking down on fraud, we are plugging benefit loopholes. Earlier in the month, I restricted access to benefits that were widely abused by bogus asylum seekers. More than 90 per cent. of those claiming asylum are eventually found not to be genuine refugees. While the number of asylum claims in the rest of Europe has been falling, it has been rising in the United Kingdom, partly because of the attractions of our benefits system.
  Those problems have been recognised not only by the Government but by the Social Security Select Committee and Amnesty International. Only the Opposition have failed to recognise an abuse that involves about £200 million a year of taxpayers' money going to bogus asylum seekers. The reforms that I have put in place restrict benefits for economic migrants but meet our proper obligations to those genuinely seeking refuge in Britain.
  Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Is there any chance that the Minister will stop spreading the nonsense about the £200 million? He knows perfectly well that, if he removes benefits from asylum seekers who are appealing against a decision to refuse them asylum, the cost to local government of supporting those people under the Children Act 1989 is likely to be far more than £200 million. He is making a xenophobic attack on asylum seekers rather than dealing with the serious problems of poverty among people who have fled from fear and repression.
  Mr. Lilley: The hon. Gentleman is simply mistaken. Local authorities will, of course, have an obligation to ensure that children in their areas do not suffer hardship, but they can do so by paying the same amount as would otherwise be available in benefits. There will therefore be no greater cost in such cases. However, only a small fraction of asylum seekers have children. There will be no loss in cases involving children, and a burden will be imposed on local authorities only when there is any risk of hardship. In most cases there is not; most asylum seekers do not have children.
  While we have been reforming benefits in Britain, the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) has been off to Australia in search of better benefits for the Labour party. There he discovered Australia's JET—or jobs, education and training—scheme, which helps lone parents back into work. The hon. Gentleman recently said:
  "I can give a pretty strong steer that one thing likely to be included in our policy review is the JET scheme. It does seem to work. It does seem to save money".

  195
  The fact is that the Australian scheme has not saved money. Its cost has exceeded by £40 million the savings in benefits for all those who have returned to work. If those who would have returned to work anyway were excluded, the net cost would be even higher. Even that calculation excludes the cost of the Australian child care arrangements, which are essential for the scheme to work, and which would cost more than £1 billion to replicate in this country. Alas, the simple fact is that there are few self-financing options in welfare. The Labour party should not pretend that its expensive policies would come free of cost to the taxpayer.
  The Government have long recognised the difficulties of lone parenthood, and the importance of helping lone parents back into work. That is why we have announced a major pilot scheme to help lone parents with skill training and job search, and why we have added 18,000 child care places to the 50,000 that we have generated over the past few years.
  However, we also recognise that there are great costs involved in supporting lone parenthood. Total benefits for lone parents are expected to exceed £9 billion this year. That means that every working family, in addition to supporting its own children, is having to pay on average £1,500 in extra taxes to support lone parents.
  My strategy for easing that burden is threefold. First, we must improve the incentives for lone parents to work, so I have improved family credit, which is of particular help to lone parents. I extended it to those who work part time, and from last July I boosted it by £10 a week for those working full time. I also introduced an allowance for the cost of child care, which I shall raise to £60 per week from next April. That will be especially valuable to those with more than one child, and to those who work full time. As a result of the changes already made, the number of lone parents who work is rising. About 270,000 lone parents are benefiting from family credit.
  The second element in our policy on lone parents is to ensure that more of them receive regular maintenance from the absent parent. The taxpayer should help to support children only if parents have not the means to do so. The Child Support Agency, after a difficult start, is now proving increasingly effective, and is on target to collect and arrange 60 per cent. more maintenance this year than last year. Even absent parents on benefit ought to contribute to the cost of their children, and from April I propose to double the minimum contribution to 10 per cent. of basic income support.
  Finally, I want to ensure that the benefit system does not put married couples at a disadvantage relative to lone parents. I can tell my hon. Friends, but Opposition Members may not like to hear it:
  "For decades politicians would not talk about the issue. Tax and benefit policy was squeezed to help single parents and childless couples. Single parents gained more help than did two parents. The policy has got to be reversed".
  Those were not my words but those of the Chairman of the Social Security Select Committee, the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field). Of course, he was right.
  There are two elements in benefits for lone parents that have no equivalent for couples—one-parent benefit and lone-parent premium. Together, those cost more than £600 million a year.
  196
  One-parent benefit was introduced in 1976, as a strictly temporary measure in advance of the main child benefit scheme. While the Child Benefit Bill was going through the House, the then Barbara Castle said:
  "there is to be an interim benefit of £1.50 a week for the one-parent family for a year from April 1976 until the child benefit scheme comes into effect".—[Official Report, 13 May 1975; Vol. 892, c. 337.].
  Since then, changes to the benefit and tax system have made it possible for a lone parent not only to be better off in work but to have a higher net income than a couple in similar circumstances with the same gross earnings, despite the fact that the latter would have an extra adult to support. That cannot be right.
  I therefore propose no increase in one-parent benefit or lone-parent premium in April. The Government intend to narrow the gap between the benefits for lone parents and those for couples. I have referred to the Social Security Advisory Committee regulations to enable me to do that at a controlled pace, and in a way that does not produce cash losers.
  Those proposals increase the opportunities to combine work and family responsibilities for all families. They improve incentives for lone parents to support themselves and to avoid the trap of welfare dependency, and they reduce the burden on self-supporting married couples.
  I also intend to improve work incentives for all workers. From April 1996, employers will qualify for one year's remission from their national insurance contributions for each person whom they take on who has been out of work for two years or more. One of the measures before us cuts national insurance class 4 contributions for self-employed people by 1.3 per cent. from April. Finally, I intend to cut the main rate of employers' national insurance contributions by 0.2 per cent. from April next year.
  The major success of Britain's welfare provision is the extent to which we have encouraged people to provide for their own retirement. Most countries finance their pensions schemes largely from tax. This year's tax is used to pay for this year's pensions, and nothing is set aside for the future. The system is "pay as you go". The more elderly people there are, and the fewer people of working age, the more crippling the tax burden that the latter will face as the years go by.
  The jewel in Britain's crown is our system of largely funded compulsory second pensions. More than three quarters of employees who are eligible to do so have opted out of our state earnings-related scheme into private schemes. Their money is genuinely saved and invested. It goes into business, and finances the assets that will generate profits to pay for their pensions when they retire, without imposing a tax burden on the British economy. It also strengthens the British economy by injecting a huge and growing stream of long-term savings.
  Those savings are immense. The total value of investment in British pension funds has reached nearly £600 billion. That is not only more than the figure for any other single country in Europe but more than that for all the other countries in the European Community put together. Moreover, it is £100 billion more than in the previous year. So although the state is spending nearly £90 billion a year on social security, the value of what the private sector saves for retirement has increased by even more than that in a year.

  197
  The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development recently contrasted Britain's position on pensions and other welfare services with that of other developed countries. It forecast each country's national debt, assuming that it continued with its present pensions system and levels of taxes and charges. That OECD comparison showed that, by the year 2030, the national debt in France and Germany will have more than doubled, and will exceed the national income. In Japan—a country that is aging particularly fast—debt will reach three times the national income. By contrast, Britain's second-tier funded pension places us in an almost unique position. The OECD forecasts that we will have paid off our entire national debt and will start to build up assets. That is an immensely important source of the strength of this country.
  Mr. David Shaw: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, if unfunded pension liabilities were added to the national debt in each of our European partners, only the United Kingdom would get near to meeting the Maastricht criteria on the proportion of debt to national income? Every other country in Europe would be in a very bad state as a result of its massive unfunded pension liabilities.
  Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend makes a very interesting point. I have not done the sums; but if what he says is true, it leaves the interesting possibility that we would be the only member of a single currency—were we to opt to take part. It gives the words "single currency" a new complexion.
  Mr. Corbyn: The Secretary of State would still be against it.
  Mr. Lilley: Well, it is something to be borne in mind.
  It is right to recognise that unfunded liabilities are a potential burden that countries must bear. We have taken steps to make sure that we have funded our provision, and we hope that others will belatedly follow our example, rather than suggest that we should help them with their difficult tasks.
  Labour's policies pose a threat to our success in building up funded private pensions. Labour has proposed a guaranteed minimum pension which, of necessity, involves means-testing people's private pensions. That means that people will lose up to £1 of guaranteed minimum pension for every £1 of private pension income saved. Such a measure would be a huge disincentive to private saving and a savage attack on thrift and prudence. The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury wrote to The Times today, denying that that is Labour's policy. He wrote:
  "Sir, Contrary to the assertions in your editorial 'Lilley's Logic"'—
  an excellent title, I have to say—
  "Labour has not made a commitment to a guaranteed minimum pension."
  Mr. Chris Smith: That is correct.
  Mr. Lilley: The hon. Gentleman has reiterated that from a sedentary position. But Labour has proposed a guaranteed minimum pension. Let me remind the hon. Gentleman that the Leader of the Opposition said in his much-hyped party conference speech last October:
  198
  "We are looking at ways…to guarantee a minimum standard of living for our pensioners. The aim of the policy is to … guarantee a minimum income that provides dignity in old age. That is new Labour".
  I challenge the hon. Gentleman to tell us who we should believe. Perhaps he might care to reconcile these two apparently divergent positions.
  Mr. Smith: Clearly the Secretary of State is not as hot on logic as The Times seems to believe, as there is no inconsistency whatsoever between the two statements.
  Mr. Lilley: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman had no duplicitous intent, but his letter to The Times is clearly apt to mislead, as it gives the clear impression that the Leader of the Opposition did not promise a guaranteed minimum pension. [HON. MEMBERS: "He did not promise that."] The right hon. Gentleman said "the policy"—he was referring to Labour's policy to provide "a guaranteed minimum income" in old age. If that is not a guaranteed minimum pension, what is?
  Mr. Donald Dewar: It could be income support.
  Mr. Lilley: Income support is a form of guaranteed minimum pension, but the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury said that Labour did not promise to provide one. I repeat what the hon. Gentleman said in his letter to The Times today:
  "Labour has not made a commitment to a guaranteed minimum pension."
  Mr. Smith: Pensions and income are different.
  Mr. Lilley: Well, now we know. This is a matter that would have provided Lord Justice Scott with some interesting opportunities to compare and contrast the intentions of the Opposition, and he would have been hard put to say whether their duplicity was deliberate or not.
  In any case, the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury does not just contradict the Leader of the Opposition; he goes on to contradict himself. He recently went down under to look at Australia's pensions policy, accompanied by a BBC journalist—Miss Rosie Barnes, I believe.
  Mr. Smith: Rosie Waterhouse.
  Mr. Lilley: I am sorry. The hon. Gentleman obviously has more information on who accompanied him down under than I do. The BBC, rather unusually, chose to issue a press release, the headline of which was "Labour plans a new second tier pension for all, announces Chris Smith on BBC Newsnight". Yet in his letter to The Times today, the hon. Gentleman says:
  "We do not propose a second tier pension".
  The third, and most serious, threat in Labour's proposals is its ambition to get its hands, the state's hands and even the trade unions' hands on private pension funds. Labour has always wanted to do that. Harold Wilson planned a state investment fund, and Roy Hattersley—as a Labour Front Bencher—planned to give the state powers to divert pension funds to finance projects deemed to be in the nation's interests. Even the normally

  199
  admirable hon. Member for Birkenhead has proposed a "stakeholder corporation" on which the trade unions would be allocated
  "the appropriate number of seats".
  Recently, the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury went out to Singapore, and they expressed their admiration for Singapore's state-run central provident fund that the right hon. Gentleman, in his great "stakeholder" speech, said had "worked well". The right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Gentleman went on to say that Labour would draw lessons from Singapore's scheme in designing what they called a "stakeholder welfare system" for a stakeholder economy.
  That should set alarm bells ringing, because the big difference between our system of pension provision and that of Singapore is that the state controls investments in Singapore. As a result, the central provident fund that the Leader of the Opposition thinks has "worked well" has yielded just 2 per cent. more than inflation as a return for pensioners since 1980. During the same period, the United Kingdom's private pension funds have yielded nearly 10 per cent. a year more than inflation. If the same amount were invested over a working lifetime at these yields in the British and Singapore pension schemes, the British scheme would provide a pension four times larger than that available from Singapore's state scheme. I am happy to say that the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury, who praised the Singapore scheme to the highest out there, has today told The Times that Labour has
  "specifically ruled out the Singaporean Central Provident Fund model"
  that was to be the model for the stakeholder economy.
  That should be good news, but the Opposition are now running down to Australia. After a brief holiday romance in Singapore in which they fell in love with the CFP, the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury flitted down to Australia and promptly fell in love with that country's system. The BBC press release goes on to explain why.
  Mr. Dewar: What does this have to do with the orders?
  Mr. Lilley: There is an order relating to guaranteed minimum pensions, and this is very germane to it. The BBC press release said:
  "Chris Smith was particularly interested in Australia's Industry-wide superannuation funds, which are administered jointly by employers and Trade Unions, giving the Unions power over how they are invested."
  The BBC press release continued:
  "And, if Britain had a central or Industry-wide funds, Chris Smith said they would most likely be invested in a mix of the markets and job-creating schemes to improve the infrastructure."
  That is the one positive element of Labour party policy that the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury did not bother to tell the readers of The Times about this morning when he ran away from all the previous commitments. I will give him the opportunity to run away from that one now.
  Mr. Chris Smith: The Secretary of State would do better to listen to what I said to the BBC, rather than what it wrote in its press release. The two are not necessarily the same.
  Mr. Lilley: If the hon. Gentleman has a dispute with the BBC, I am prepared to row in on his side and seek a correction. I telephoned the BBC and protested about the press release on his behalf. I thought it improper of the BBC to send it out practically in his name. I also said that it read very much like a Labour press release, but if the hon. Gentleman disagrees and wishes to tell us in which respect he disagrees, we will be only too anxious to hear.
  The pensioners of this country do not want their private pension funds to be controlled or influenced by the state or the trades unions. They want them invested in a way that maximises the return to them when they retire. They are very satisfied with the high rates of return obtained from schemes under our system since it was given a boost by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) some years ago. Our next priority is to build on our successful pension strategy, by encouraging more provision to meet the cost of long-term care for the elderly. Our arrangements have always involved a mixture of private and state provision. State provision has been means-tested since 1948 with the value of capital, including the home, taken into account.
  Those matters have growing salience because more and more people are living longer and own their homes and have capital and pensions. I well understand the feelings of people who have been thrifty and prudent during their working lives and find themselves using up all their capital to pay for care that people in the same residential home are getting free.
  The Chancellor responded to those concerns by allowing people to keep more of their assets. From April 1996, we propose to double the upper capital limit for income support for those in residential care to £16,000 and we are more than trebling the lower capital limit. We are consulting on important proposals to stimulate the development of attractive schemes for self-provision for long-term care.
  The measures before us protect the most vulnerable, strengthen work incentives and control spending long term. We are fortunate in this country in that fewer people are out of work than in any other major country in western Europe, more people are in jobs and we have the lowest inflation for a generation.
  Ms Mildred Gordon: How will the measures protect the most vulnerable, when absent parents on income support who get £47.90 a week will now have to pay £4.80, bringing them below the subsistence level that the Government set and way below the level that the family budget unit suggested in its researches for the Rowntree Trust? Can the right hon. Gentleman also tell us how much an absent parent under the age of 25, receiving £37.90 will have to pay and how that family is going to live on the meagre amount that is left?
  Mr. Lilley: It is the children who will ultimately gain from maintenance and it is right that they should be supported by their parents and not by the state. Even for someone on income support, the first priority should be

  201
  to pay at least a token amount towards support of the children. It is probably to the long-term benefit of children—whether or not the mother is also on income support—for them to know that some of their support is coming from the absent father, as well as the help from the state. The answer to the hon. Lady's second question is that it is the same for that group as for those on the basic rate.
  Mr. Alan Howarth: Is the House to understand from what the right hon. Gentleman said that he plans to introduce an income support disregard for child maintenance? Otherwise, it seems that the money goes to the Treasury and not to the family or the children, despite what he says.
  Mr. Lilley: The hon. Gentleman works on the presumption that people are supported by the state unless someone voluntarily provides some support for themselves. Our basic presumption is that parents support their children and the state comes in only to supplement what they can provide, if they do not have the means to provide sufficient. The first call is on the parent and the state only supplements that, rather than the first call being on the state, with parental provision being almost irrelevant.
  Mr. Howarth rose—
  Ms Gordon rose—
  Mr. Terry Roon rose—
  Mr. Lilley: I have given way to both the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Lady once, so I will give way to the hon. Member for Bradford, North.
  Mr. Rooney: I admire the Secretary of State's concern for children, but is he aware that, as drafted, the nursery vouchers scheme will be counted as income for any parent who is in receipt of family credit?
  Mr. Lilley: The Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Mr. Mitchell), cast doubt on that allegation. I will look into it and write to the hon. Gentleman, if I may. I should say that my hon. Friend cast doubt on it in the most emphatic terms.
  Yet again, the debate has highlighted the contrast between our social security policies and those of the Labour party. Labour would allow spending to increase to unaffordable levels, which ultimately would betray the people who depend on the welfare system. We are determined to keep spending under control and to focus help on the people who need it most.
  Labour flirts with costly schemes for lone parents, which it has picked up far away. We are implementing a three-pronged system to improve work incentives, secure more maintenance and remove benefit distortions. Labour would harm pensioners and taxpayers by extending state controls, raising costs and destroying incentives to save through wider means-testing. We are helping more and more people to provide for a comfortable old age by building up a third tier of personal provision.
  In short, Labour seeks to con the electorate by a shadowy, costly and damaging set of proposals. By contrast, we have put in place a principled programme
  202
  of reform, which is already delivering results. The measures continue our reform. They raise benefit levels for the vulnerable and are combined with reforms to enable us to afford that help. I commend them to the House.
  5.7 pm
  Mr. Chris Smith: I am glad that, in his final two sentences, the Secretary of State got to the orders and regulations. Perhaps I should begin by saying that I shall be advising my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote against the family law regulations and the child support amendment regulations. We shall not be voting against the general uprating order because it contains a large number of measures that will be of benefit, but we disagree with a number of proposals within it.
  First, it may be worth looking at the Government's general record on social security. Since 1979, total Government expenditure on benefit has increased by £30 billion in real terms and the number of people dependent on benefit has doubled from one in 12 to one in six. At the same time, the Government have increased employees' national insurance contributions from 6.5 per cent. to 10 per cent. That is the real record of this Government on social security. So, when the Secretary of State talks, in rather regal terms, about "my reforms", he is ultimately talking about a record of failure.
  The income of the richest tenth of the population has grown by more than 60 per cent. in the past 17 years, while the income of the poorest tenth has decreased by 17 per cent. The gap between rich and poor has increased more in Britain than it has in any other major developed country. The number of children in our country who are living in poverty has trebled, from one child in every 12 in 1979 to one child in every four. Even since 1990, when the Prime Minister took office, the number of people who are dependent on income support has increased by 2.85 million people, which is an increase of 40 per cent. That is the Government's record, and it includes the most recent figures. The soft soap that the Secretary of State occasionally gives us should be taken in that context.
  The Government have succeeded in creating the worst of all possible worlds. They have made the social security system more brutal by cut after cut to particular benefits, affecting particular groups in our society, yet they have succeeded in massively increasing the bill to the taxpayer.
  In the course of half an hour this afternoon, the social security budget increased by £3 billion. At Question Time, the Secretary of State told us that this year's social security budget will be £87 billion. Half an hour later, he told us that it will be £90 billion. If that was meant to be a clarification, and he was referring to one year in one answer and another year in another answer, we welcome it. I shall give him the opportunity to make that clarification.
  Mr. Lilley: The earlier answer was in relation to the current financial year, while the statement in my speech was about the coming financial year, to which the regulations refer.
  Mr. Smith: That is a very useful clarification.

  203
  The Secretary also said that the Labour party opposed the £1 billion of so-called savings that were announced in the Budget. We did not oppose the Government's proposals on fraud, and the lion's share of the claimed savings related to fraud. Clarification of that would be useful. On page 130 of the Red Book, the Government say:
  "By 1998–99 social security anti-fraud measures are expected to save about £2.5 billion a year."
  Is that figure correct? It does not tie in with other figures that they have given. It would be useful to know by the end of the debate whether that £2.5 billion a year of savings on fraud, which are expected in the next three years, is an actual figure. We should be very interested to know precisely what figures the Government are expecting.
  The Secretary of State has also given us a statement that somehow, despite the fact that the bill has increased by £30 billion in the past 17 years, all is at last under control. What about the current year? Page 114 of the Red Book contains a very interesting little sentence. In talking about the control total for 1995–96, it says:
  "Social security spending is forecast to be higher than planned, but this is more than covered by the unallocated Reserve of £3 billion within the Control Total."
  At a time when the Government tell us that unemployment is falling, why is the social security budget for the current year projected to be higher than was planned at the start of the year? If that is the case, how can matters be, as the Secretary of State keeps telling us, substantially under control?
  Should we believe the Secretary of State or the Chancellor of the Exchequer in relation to the future? The Secretary of State has told us a couple of times today that the social security budget is set to grow by 1 per cent. in real terms in the next few years. However, in a much publicised speech a few days ago, when he spoke of something called a strong welfare state—something that is not particularly recognisable under this Government's stewardship—the Chancellor said that the
  "real growth in social security spending"
  in the next three years will be 1.5 per cent. Who is right—the Secretary of State, who tells us that growth will be 1 per cent., or the Chancellor, who tells us that it will be 1.5 per cent.? This is not a semantic matter, because 0.5 per cent. of the social security budget is almost £500 million of public expenditure. We are entitled to know whether the Secretary of State's figure or the Chancellor's figure is the correct one.
  Mr. Alan Duncan: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will tell the House who is right on a similar matter. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, in considering future years, plans to cut his Department's running costs by £750 million. The hon. Gentleman criticised that proposal, but he quickly had his wrist slapped by the hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith). Which of those two Labour Front Benchers is right?
  Mr. Smith: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith), who told me in a letter of 13 February—not 12 February, as incorrectly reported by the Evening Standard:
  204
  "There must be doubts about the wisdom of trying to achieve so much in so short a time",
  referring precisely to the Government's proposals.
  It is terribly interesting that the Secretary of State, in an exchange of correspondence with the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 24 October last year, said to him:
  "Your proposed settlement on running costs fills me with despair."
  Now, a few months later, the Secretary of State is telling us that the settlement was all wonderfully well planned in advance and that it is a wonderful way forward for the Department. That is a slightly different version of events from the one we were given in October.
  The motions propose freezing one-parent benefit and the lone-parent premium. The saving to the Government from each of those measures will be £5 million out of an overall budget of £90 billion. So the Government must have had some really important objective to include such a tiny measure within those proposals, and they have now told us what it is: an eventual equalisation of the position between single-parent and two-parent families. That is an entirely new doctrine for the Government this year, and it appears to rest on the view that the cost of raising a child in a one-parent household is exactly the same—there is no difference whatsoever—as it is in a two-parent household. One does not have to be a genius to understand that if someone cannot count on the unpaid labour of another member of the household, the costs of bringing up a child are bound to be greater. The Government themselves subscribed to that view at one time.
  The 1985 Green Paper on the reform of social security—written, I believe, by the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler), whom I am pleased to see in his place—argued that one-parent benefit should be continued
  "as a contribution to the additional costs faced by lone parents in bringing up children alone".
  It went on to say that the lone-parent premium was introduced in order to recognise
  "the extra pressures faced by lone parents."
  In the subsequent White Paper, the Government emphasised:
  "The principle of continued recognition of the need for specific further help for lone parents on top of that provided by the family premium has been welcomed".
  In 1985, the Government and the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield were saying that lone parents clearly faced additional costs and had extra pressures imposed on them, yet the Government are now telling us that there is no difference between them and two-parent families. They said one thing in 1985 and another in 1995.
  Lone parents are, of course, in general poorer than two-parent families, even taking account of the number of people in the household, and the gap between lone parents and couples is growing. In 1979, the average median equivalised income of lone-parent families was 79 per cent. of that of couples with children. By 1992, that had fallen to 64 per cent.
  The Government ought to know that the comparative position of single-parent families had worsened in relation to that of two-parent families because the information is contained in the Department of Social Security's

  205
  "Households Below Average Income" report. The Social Security Advisory Committee told the Government the same thing in 1989. It stated:
  "A key feature of these two benefits"—
  one-parent benefit and the lone-parent premium—
  "is their reliability. When problems are being experienced with maintenance, Income Support, Family Credit or wages (for example, when a child is sick or the care arrangements break down), Child Benefit and One Parent Benefit continue to be paid with unfailing regularity…these benefits are highly valued by lone parents".
  I am afraid that the Government's tune has changed dramatically in only a few years. They are going down the wrong road in saying that the difficulties faced by single-parent families somehow do not matter—they do.
  One-parent benefit in particular is a key part of any benefit-to-work strategy because it is carried through when a lone parent takes work—it is a through-train. It is one of the few parts of the benefit system that acts as a bridge between benefit and work. If we have learned anything in recent years, it has to be that we should be making it easier for people to move from benefit into work, out of dependency and into the work force. Yet the Government, by freezing this particular benefit for such meagre savings, are going in completely the wrong direction.
  If the Government do not believe me, they should listen to what the Select Committee on Employment said in its report on mothers in employment. It stated:
  "The difficulties caused by means-tested benefits are worse for lone parent families".
  It went on to recommend that
  "the Government establish a task force which would include representatives of all the relevant departments, to study the special difficulties that lone parents encounter in attempting to enter the workforce and escape the benefit system".
  Instead of responding positively to that proposal, the Government want to freeze and eventually eliminate one of the key parts of the benefit that assists single parents.
  The Secretary of State had one or two remarks to make about the jobs, education and training scheme—the JET scheme—in Australia. In fact, his assessment of the scheme was incorrect. Yes, the costs of the first couple of years of the scheme's operation were greater than the savings on benefit expenditure. If he doubts that, he should ask the permanent secretary at the Department of Social Security in Australia. I did precisely that only four weeks ago.
  Mr. Lilley: The hon. Gentleman might be interested to know that I sent my previous and present permanent secretaries to Australia. They carried out a rather fuller investigation of the costings than the hon. Gentleman seems to have done. They took into account the two factors that I mentioned, which are not taken into account in anything that the hon. Gentleman has said or in the figures that he is now giving.
  Mr. Smith: I am afraid that the information that has come back to the Secretary of State from Australia has been overtaken by events. In the current year—the Department of Social Security in Australia will confirm this—more money is saved from the benefit system, because of the number of people who enter the work force or full-time education or training and come off benefit, than is spent on administering the JET scheme. If the
  206
  Secretary of State doubts that evidence, he should examine the basic figures. The average length of time that a single parent in Australia spends on benefit has gone down during the four years of the scheme's operation.
  We need to examine the increase in the non-dependant deductions in housing benefit. The increase is over and above the rate of inflation. That is no small matter because the Government tell us in parliamentary answers that some 500,000 people will be effected by the increase in the non-dependant deduction. If someone living in a household is deemed by the system to be able to contribute to the housing costs, his housing benefit is accordingly reduced. The amount of that reduction is being increased by more than the rate of inflation. That will have two effects.
  First, it is a further disincentive for family members to take work and exacerbates the difference between work-poor and work-rich households. It means that people will think twice before deciding to take a job opportunity. Secondly, it will act as a stimulus for family break-up. There is clear evidence that when the sons and daughters of a household reach adulthood, the pressure on them to move away from the family home because of the impact of the non-dependant deduction often increases the break-up of families. That policy comes from a Government who say that they believe in the family, but it will intensify the problem.
  There are other housing benefit changes in the pipeline, not specifically in the orders but none the less flagged up in the uprating statement. We are told that there will be a cap on housing benefit payments for people under the age of 25; that they will have to live with housing benefit that represents the cost of shared, rather than real, accommodation. That will force many young people into unregulated, multiple-occupation accommodation. Its possible impact on young people coming out of care is especially worrying. It takes no account of the fact that there are many areas where shared accommodation is scarce, so it will place a serious burden on young people who cannot find shared accommodation.
  The cap on housing benefit provides yet another disincentive in the system to people taking up work. If people under the age of 25 who are unemployed and in receipt of housing benefit take jobs that are temporary, or likely to be temporary, they will lose their housing benefit because they are earning money. When those jobs end after six months or a year, they will go back on to housing benefit but at a lower rate than when the employment was first taken up. For many people, that may mean losing not only their jobs but their homes. That is a powerful disincentive to people thinking of taking up temporary, or possibly temporary, work. Through their housing benefit system proposals, the Government will intensify that disincentive.
  The proposals also act as a disincentive to moving to take up a job. If people on a higher rate of housing benefit move from their existing accommodation into a new area to take up employment, they may have that employment only for a short period. If they lose those jobs, they will immediately go on to the lower rate of housing benefit.
  That measure comes on top of a series of measures that the Government have taken to make the entire benefit system harsher for people under the age of 25. On the introduction of income support in 1988, they withdrew income support from 16 and 17-year-olds. They

  207
  introduced a lower rate of benefit for the under-25s and aligned income support with housing benefit, thereby cutting help with housing costs for young people.
  The jobseeker's allowance will be another blow for young people because people between the age of 18 and 24 who are currently eligible for unemployment benefit receive the same rate of benefit as all other unemployment benefit claimants. As non-means-tested jobseeker's allowance will be aligned with income support rates, benefits for under-25s will be reduced. For single people under 25, that will mean a 20 per cent. cut in benefit.
  There is one other housing benefit change in the pipeline—the proposal that the payment of housing benefit should be made in arrears rather than in advance. The reason why housing benefit has been paid in advance is that rent has to be paid in advance. That is a simple proposition.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Roger Evans)indicated dissent.
  Mr. Smith: The Minister suggests that rent does not have to be paid in advance. I do not know whether he has gone out looking for private rented accommodation in the recent past but he is living in more of a fantasy land even than most of the Government if he believes that rent will not be requested in advance by private landlords.
  In addition, the Government should bear in mind the problems for local authorities, which will have to adjust all their computerised systems for the payment of housing benefit to take account of the changes that the Government are introducing. Despite all that, the Government make dramatic claims about the amount of money that they will save by the measure.
  In a written answer to me on 29 January 1996, the Government said that the amount that would be saved by the change in the payment arrangements for housing benefit would be £105 million in the first year, 1996–97, and in the second year, £120 million. I would like the Government to tell us how they have calculated those figures because the only direct saving that they make by that change is to shift in the course of one year expenditure from one month into another. That will produce a cosmetic saving in the Government's accounts. They must be relying on the expectation that, somehow, the change will make a substantial difference to the fight against housing benefit fraud. If that is the case, I want to know how they intend to achieve those savings because they are considerable—the largest of any of the measures in the uprating statement.
  Mr. Duncan: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Smith: No, I have already given way to the hon. Gentleman.
  The Government have also announced in the orders that they are to freeze the level of cold weather payments for pensioners on income support. [Interruption.] The Secretary of State expresses some astonishment. The amount for cold weather payments in the motions is the same in cash terms as it was in the current year. I am surprised that he does not know the content of his own orders and regulations.
  208
  The issue is especially appropriate today because we are reminded by the cold weather of the great difficulty faced by many elderly people struggling to pay their heating bills. There are two things which at the very least the Government should do—quite apart from the relatively small amount of money that it would take to be more generous in uprating the payments in line with the broad uprating of other benefits.
  First, the Government should pick up the point that was made at Question Time by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Wicks). The Government, sensibly, have said that when cold weather for the specified period is forecast, people will be entitled to cold weather payments. They will not have to wait until after the cold weather to be sure that the benefit will be guaranteed. Why on the earth are the Government not more active about making sure that as soon as the cold weather is forecast, everyone knows about it so that those people in areas that will qualify for cold weather payments can be confident that they will get the money, and can put on their fire for a longer period than they would otherwise want to do? The Government have said that they are prepared to use forecasting but they do so with great reluctance. They ought to use it more often.
  Secondly, there is the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Ms Hodge) in her question to the Secretary of State this afternoon. It does not make sense that the residents of Nos. 450 to 472 Lodge avenue have received one cold weather payment this winter, when the residents of Nos. 453 to 469 Lodge avenue have received four cold weather payments over the same period. I appreciate the Secretary of State's point that somewhere and somehow lines must be drawn. However, there are absurdities in the system, of which Lodge avenue is one example. The Secretary of State should examine the system of cold weather payments to see whether it is possible to eliminate those absurdities.
  As I have said, I shall be advising my hon. Friends to oppose the child support regulations. We agree with the principle that both parents must accept a financial responsibility for the upkeep and welfare of children. However, the order increases demands on the absent parent who is in receipt of income support. In many cases, the child and the parent with custody will derive no real benefit from the order because the Treasury will get the money. That is the whole point of the Government's action: they have told us that they will raise £10 million in the first year as a result. In the majority of cases, the Treasury, and not the child, will benefit in real terms.
  The absent parent will face a sharp reduction in what is already a breadline income. The Government propose to take money from absent parents and give it to the Treasury. Those absent parents presently get no needs allowance for the upkeep of children when their income support is calculated and, according to the calculations endorsed by the Government, that income support is intended to keep only one person together in body and soul. A further deduction will put those parents well below the poverty line. The Government must think about what they are doing. Both parents have a clear responsibility to ensure that their children are provided for, but the absent parent who is in receipt of income support should not be forced to live below the breadline. That is what the Government's order will do.
  Ms Gordon: Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be damaging to children if absent parents were deeply distressed by being forced to live in dire poverty?
  Mr. Smith: I agree with my hon. Friend, who takes a very keen, cross-party interest in the work of the Child Support Agency and in the operation of the Child Support Act 1991. The welfare of children is very important, but we should not forget about the welfare of both parents. In making a change, the Government are forgetting about the welfare of the absent parent.
  Some of the orders before us tonight relate to pensions. They bring into focus two aspects of pension provision about which I shall press the Government. The first relates to the claims made by the Secretary of State—in this place today and elsewhere—about personal pension provision in this country. Conservative Members have made much of the £600 billion—it is a wonderful figure—invested by British pension holders, most of whom hold occupational pensions. The number of occupational pensions holders has decreased during the life of this Government and I shall deal with the reasons for that in a moment.
  Mr. David Shaw: And private pensions and life insurance.
  Mr. Smith: That is not what the Secretary of State says: he makes the claim for occupational and private pensions. The Government have deliberately encouraged people to opt out of occupational pensions and into personal pensions, and about 1 million people have done so. The Government commissioned an advertising campaign several years ago encouraging people to do precisely that. Between 4 million and 5 million people have also opted out of state earnings-related pensions schemes and into personal pension schemes. Many of those who have opted out of SERPS or occupational pensions and into personal pension schemes may now be worse off than before.
  Everyone agrees that there was a problem with mis-selling. I believe that the Government bear a heavy responsibility for deliberately encouraging people to opt for personal pensions when we know that that was not a sensible step in many cases. The Government have made all sorts of complacent claims; I am staggered that they believe that personal pensions are the be all and end all of pension provision in this country. We know not only that a large number of personal pensions were mis-sold, but that personal pension holders often lose 25 per cent. or more of their pensions in administration and commission fees. About £ 1 in every £4 that savers invest in personal pension schemes disappears in administrative costs. That is not good value for the saver.
  Mr. Nick Hawkins: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not get so carried away with the Labour party's politics of envy that he runs down the enormous contribution of the financial services industry—in which we lead the world—to the United Kingdom balance of payments and to our national income.
  Mr. Smith: Far from it—I shall ensure that the financial services industry flourishes still further under a future Labour Government. The pension products that are available to British savers should provide good value for
  210
  money. People's hard-earned savings should not disappear in administrative fees and charges, which is what is happening.
  Mr. Corbyn: In addition to the 25 per cent. administration charges, is my hon. Friend aware of another serious danger? The majority of personal pensions that have been sold are nowhere near maturity, but there is no guarantee as to who will support or bail out those individuals who have spent a large proportion of their working lives paying into pension schemes if the pension companies, institutions or funds collapse.
  Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point: we need a good and proper regulatory framework to protect all investors in every pension scheme.
  While we are discussing personal pensions and the future of pension provision, the right hon. Gentleman has been peddling a myth for some weeks about Labour being interested in a Singaporean, state-directed, state-invested scheme—that is a complete fantasy on the Government's part. At no stage has the Labour party endorsed such a scheme. We have learned lessons from Singapore precisely because the scheme has not yielded a good return for the investor in Singapore. We have said on a number of occasions that we will not proceed down the road of the central provident fund when developing our policies for pensions.
  Mr. Lilley: Is the hon. Member again denying the words of his leader, the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), who said in Singapore:
  "For Singapore the Central Provident Fund has worked well".
  The hon. Member has just said that it worked badly.
  Mr. Smith: These days, the Government are very good at selective quotations from documents. In relation to the economy and infrastructure of Singapore, the central provident fund has been successful but for the individual savers of Singapore, the fund has not been a particularly good deal. Such a system would not be a particularly good deal for the people of Britain. If the Secretary of State or his researchers had been on the ball, four weeks ago they would have read a perceptive article, which appeared in The New Statesman and Society and was written by me. The article set out precisely what lessons we thought should be learnt from the Singaporean experience and clearly spelt out why we would not proceed along that road.
  Sir Norman Fowler: I give the hon. Gentleman an opportunity to deny another rumour that is going around—that the Labour party intends to abandon its pledge to uprate pensions in line with earnings. Will he confirm that that is not remotely the intention of the Labour party?
  Mr. Smith: If I spent my entire time responding to rumours put around by central office and others, I should be doing a better job at tilting at windmills than fictional characters have done in the past. If the right hon. Gentleman had read the comment that I made in response to that challenge in the Sunday Express, he would know that I said very clearly that we are in the process of looking at all our policies in relation to social security

  211
  and, at this stage, no decision has been made. However, we shall make our policy clear within the next few months.
  The Government are peddling another rumour—which also needs to be countered—that somehow the Labour party is interested "in getting the state's hands on your pension funds". Well, we are not. The Government have got their grubby hands on people's pension funds—they have reduced the value of the state earnings-related pension scheme for those people who are in it by more than half over the last eight years. The Government made a deliberate decision in 1987–88 and last year to reduce the value of SERPS to the people who had been paying into it. If people are looking for those who are interested in getting the state's hands on their pension funds, it is the Government and not the Labour party.
  We know from what the Lord Chancellor said in the other place a few weeks ago that the Government were prepared to look at an amendment to the Family Law Bill that would ensure that, at the time of divorce, a pension held by one of the parties could be split as a pension rather than frozen as a pension, with the benefits of it being split at a subsequent time. This is an important issue for many people, particularly for women.
  The Labour party, many Members on the Cross Benches and many members of the Government in the House of Lords, were pleased when the Lord Chancellor told the other place that he was prepared to look at instituting an amendment to the Family Law Bill to ensure that pensions could be split. In the past few days, we have read in the press that the Lord Chancellor is drawing back from that proposal. Will the Secretary of State tell us what the position is during the course of this debate—as this issue has transcended partisan lines in the other place? Is the Lord Chancellor still actively and sympathetically considering instituting an amendment, or has he ruled it out? I hope that he has not ruled it out, because if he has, it will be a sad day for many people. In summary, we will not be opposing the general uprating proposals.
  Mr. Lilley: The hon. Gentleman has opposed every substantive reform and change in the benefits system that the Government announced in the Budget and in the social security uprating statement, and many that took place in the past. That is fair enough—if he wants to finance a more expensive system of social security, it is up to him to tell the House and the British people how much it will cost. Does he agree with the hon. Member for Birkenhead, who said that anyone who says that Labour's welfare objectives can be achieved without spending more has something wrong with him, and ought not to be trusted? Does the hon. Gentleman believe that it can be achieved without spending more money?
  Mr. Smith: Yes, and if the Secretary of State will contain himself for a few weeks, he will learn how we intend to go about it. I also take him up on his claim that somehow the substantive reforms in his package are ones that we oppose. The main substantive reform relates to additional measures to counter fraud, claiming that £120 million in the first year and £235 million in the second year. We are not opposing him on tackling fraud in the system—indeed, we want him to deal with it more effectively and efficiently than he appears to intend.
  212
  I referred to the other substantive measure when I asked precisely how the Government are going to make the changes in payment arrangements for housing benefits that will amount to £105 million in the first year. If the Secretary of State wants to claim that we oppose every single substantive measure that he is putting forward, he should look at the substantive measures in the package. We shall oppose the unsubstantive, but none the less harmful, change to minimum maintenance in child support.
  The measures before us are harmful to housing benefit and to the encouragement of single parents back into the work force. They are harmful in the demands that the Child Support Agency will make on those parents who are already on the breadline and they are harmful to elderly people in the freezing of cold weather payments. They are typical of the Government's salami-slicing approach to social security. With one cut after another, they are creating more dependency. They have no overall vision about the need to have a nation at work rather than a nation on benefit, and that is no way to provide real security for the people of Britain.
  6 pm
  Sir Norman Fowler: I do not regard the speech of the hon. Member for Islington. South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) as the most exemplary illustration of open opposition. When I intervened to ask him whether his party would uprate the basic pension by earnings or by prices, he ran away from my question. but when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State intervened a few seconds later, the hon. Gentleman gave the game away entirely: if he used the same envelope of costs, there is no way in which he could honour the pledge given previously. I shall return to that point in a moment. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to intervene and correct my assumptions, I shall be glad to give way.
  I welcome what the Government have done in this uprating. Although public spending is tight, it is right that substantial resources should be devoted to some of the most vulnerable groups in society. I welcome a number of the increases, particularly the increase in family credit. The aim of family credit was to help low-income families in work. It now helps more than half a million people and has proved to be an excellent innovation.
  I also welcome what is being done for pensioners and my right hon. Friend's announcement of the price uprating. Let me dwell on pensions for a few seconds. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, a debate is taking place not only here, but in every country in western Europe. As people live longer, there will be a greater demand for taxpayers' resources to be devoted to health, social services and pensions. That is why Governments everywhere are examining ways of providing options for people to save for their own retirement. That is why, not last year but 10 years ago, the Government began the process of reform. As a result, Britain is better placed than virtually any other country in western Europe to meet the emerging costs of pensions and social services.
  The review of social security in the mid-1980s meant looking at the debt that we shall leave for future generations of taxpayers. In creating the state earnings-related pension scheme, the Labour party created not a funded scheme, but a pay-as-you-go scheme. There

  213
  is no fund of investments; it relies entirely on the willingness and ability of future generations of taxpayers to finance the second-tier pension promises now being made. The unfunded second tier would be in addition to the unfunded basic pension, so it is entirely sensible for any Government to consider what can be afforded. If Members want proof of that, they have only to look at the Labour party's so-called Commission on Social Justice.
  Here I return to the crucial point about the consistency of the Labour party. For years past, Labour Members have argued that the big distinction between them and us is that they will uprate pensions by earnings rather than by prices. We have all fought elections—I fought two and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State fought one—countering that argument. It was the basis of Labour's appeal to the nation in election after election. In my time as a Minister, the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) attacked the Government at every stage for uprating only by prices; yet now we see the unmistakable signs of the Opposition in the process of conducting a major U-turn on policy. There is no doubt about that. Labour's Commission on Social Justice makes it quite clear what they are about—dropping their earnings uprating promise. If that is what they are saying in opposition, the same pressures would have led them to exactly the same conclusion had they been in Government, so their pledge at the last general election, and at previous elections, were bogus and false. The nation needs to take that on board.
  Mr. Chris Smith: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether it was a bogus or false pledge at the general election when the Prime Minister said—I believe that the right hon. Gentleman was at his right hand—that the Government had
  "no plans and no intention to extend the scope of VAT."?
  Sir Norman Fowler: What my right hon. Friend said on tax stands on the record. He also said that income tax would be reduced when and if resources allowed. The hon. Gentleman now wants a debate on VAT. That shows the absurd bankruptcy of his position. We are having a debate on social security and pensions policy, but the main Opposition spokesman wants a debate on anything other than pensions policy. The fact of the matter is—and the hon. Gentleman knows it—that the Opposition's policy is in total shambles. They are now in the process of reneging on a promise that they made year after year to the British electorate. That point needs to be taken on board by the nation, because people need some means of valuing other promises and pledges that the Opposition may make.
  There is one very sensible reason why the public want to rely on rather more than state provision. The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury talks about the security of the state. I remind him that in not-too-distant history, under the last Labour Government, the people who lost out most were the state pensioners when Barbara Castle changed the uprating system in mid-stream to make a public spending saving of more than £1 billion. She moved from historic validating by past inflation to forecasts of inflation when inflation was falling. It was a crude device and the people who missed out and suffered as a result of her action were the pensioners.
  214
  My own view on the pensions approach that we should be adopting is quite clear. The first duty of any Government is to ensure that present pension provision is adequate. That is why I welcome what the Government have done over the years. I welcome what they have done for war widows, to whom we owe a particular debt. It is right the Government should devote extra resources to them, but the issue is wider than that. It is undoubtedly good news that about 60 per cent. of retired people now have some form of additional provision. We should recognise, however, that some of the additional pension provision will be modest, and 40 per cent. still have no additional provision.
  One problem is that a group of people currently living in retirement have been unable to build up occupational pensions, through no fault of their own, for a variety of reasons. Perhaps their firms had no occupational scheme. They may have been members of occupational schemes, but because of the scandalous early leaver rules—which again the Opposition did nothing to reform when last in government—they were deprived of the true value of their savings. They may have been caught by historic employment practices. For whatever reason, they have ended up depending on the basic pension. Those people are probably now in their 80s and 90s.
  I mentioned family credit earlier. We introduced it because we were unable to help the families that we wanted to help through the general benefit of child benefit. It is open to us to help those pensioners that we want to help through a pension credit system. In other words, we could add to the basic pension of those whose incomes most urgently need supplementing. Instead of relying on a general increase in the basic pension, we could direct resources to where they are needed. Clearly, the basic pension would remain price protected, but those who have no other retirement income, or only a limited amount, could receive pension credit as an additional weekly payment. If the public are concerned about the effect on incentives, the scheme would not need to go on in perpetuity, but would last for today's generation of 80 and 90-year-olds.
  The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury sought to lecture the Government in his speech. I remind him of the position that we inherited from the Labour Government. The limit of their ambitions was the state earnings-related pension scheme. They did nothing to improve the rights of those with frozen pensions—those people forced to leave their pension entitlement frozen in value with their previous employer. That was a scandal and the Labour Government did nothing about it. They did nothing to make it possible for members of occupational schemes to transfer their rights, which was another scandal. Those entirely beneficial changes to occupational schemes were introduced by the Government.
  The pensions revolution was carried out by the Government during the past 15 years. The result is that occupational pensioners get a better and fairer deal today than they have ever had previously. Those measures were not forced on us by eager pension funds and even less by the Opposition. The Government put the interests of members of schemes first, and that is the sensible way to carry out any pensions policy.
  We also sought to give the public more options. Occupational schemes had made the most enormous contribution, but in the mid-1980s they had ceased to

  215
  grow and expand. They were stuck in the mud and some of the attitudes to members' rights were stuck with them. It was clear that many people wanted an individual pension separate from state provision. Every opinion poll showed that fact, so we introduced the extra option of personal pensions.
  I do not defend for one moment the actions of those insurance companies which have mis-sold policies—indeed, I feel more strongly about it than most people. Ironically, several of those companies were prominent in their opposition to the introduction of personal pensions. It is no part of my brief to defend wrong advice, but we should distinguish between the personal pension product and the methods used by some companies to sell the product. Andrew Large of the Securities and Investments Board said in relation to personal pensions:
  "I want to emphasise from the outset that our concern is not with personal pensions products themselves, but with how they were sold. I would add that, because of the action that regulators and the industry have already taken, people can now have greater confidence that personal pension products are being properly sold. They do offer an efficient and flexible way of saving for retirement for many people, provided they are marketed, advised on and sold properly."
  That is exactly the position. Even the Opposition now say that there is a place for personal pensions in pension provision.
  Mr. Corbyn: The right hon. Gentleman will recall that as a Minister he did much to undermine the state earnings-related pension and to promote the private pensions industry. Does he feel one iota of remorse about the sales methods that have been used by some companies to sell private pensions? What has he to say to those people who find themselves in a rather insecure private pension scheme which may not fully pay out? What guarantees are available for those people?
  Sir Norman Fowler: There are no guarantees, in the hon. Gentleman's sense, because personal pensions are money-purchase schemes. Money-purchase schemes cannot provide the kind of guarantee that a two thirds final salary scheme can, but they can provide an additional top-up to an occupational scheme or, if entered early enough and everything else being equal, they will provide a better investment than staying with SERPS. I will deal later with the hon. Gentleman's point about advice, because that is a crucial part of the story.
  The Opposition's case so far is a thousand miles from the attitude displayed by the hon. Member for Oldham, West, who opposed the introduction of personal pensions, not because he feared the activities of the insurance companies, but because he was entirely opposed to private provision. His opposition had nothing to do with insurance companies, but everything to do with ideology. The view now being put forward by the Opposition is the exact opposite.
  The Secretary of State and the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury both referred to the action being taken to put matters right by those companies whose advisers gave wrong advice. I support the action that has been taken, but a number of additional points should be made. We need to make it clear to the public that personal pensions are an entirely sensible option for many people. It is ludicrous to suggest that all people who have taken out personal pensions have been wrongly advised. Some
  216
  have been well advised and will benefit greatly from what they have done. There are some exceptionally good and reputable companies providing such pensions.
  I feel strongly that we need to review and improve the independent advice that is available to the public generally. It must usually be the wrong decision for someone to come out of an occupational scheme and take out a personal pension. I cannot speak for what happened after I left the Government, but I never intended in any of my speeches to try to persuade people to come out of occupational schemes to join personal pension schemes. It is obvious that if the employer's contribution does not remain the same, there is little or no chance that the returns will be comparable.
  It is not just the private sector that gives bad advice on pension provision. One of my constituents is 69, married and still working. He has not yet drawn his basic pension and he is contributing to a larger pension for when he retires. He has been told about his entitlement, but, because his wife received a graduated pension, she will not benefit in any way. Her graduated pension is 6p per week, or £2.60 per year, but the result of her decision to accept the graduated scheme, which she should not have made, is that the family will lose about £500 per year. If that had been a private scheme, there would be demands for explanations. I hope that I may again send the case to the Department of Social Security with a view to ascertaining what can be done. Justice is not served by such cases. There is no point in banging the table and saying that the private sector is wrong when the public sector has also failed to give the right advice or warnings.
  A problem with personal pensions is the level of employers' contributions. If employers' contributions were greater, entitlements would be greater. As a former Secretary of State, one must be careful not to encroach on the territory of one's successor. However, when I was Secretary of State I tried to persuade the public sector, including local government, to give a lead and to contribute a little more than the minimum contribution. Every public sector employer in the country united to resist that proposal. Nevertheless, there is much to be said for those who have personal pensions to have a greater contribution made by the employer, including the public sector employers, than the current one.
  It is surely beyond doubt that over the past 10 or 15 years the agenda for the reform of pensions has been set by the Government. The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury seeks to make policy, but it was pretty obvious this afternoon that he does so uneasily, glancing over his shoulder to ascertain what he can get past his colleagues. That explains the lack of frankness.
  We look forward to the new policy announcement that the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury wishes to put before us in the next few months. I hope that the announcement will be made a few months prior to the general election. We are banking on that, at any rate. I am not putting forward new points. Indeed, I put them to the predecessor of the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury and to earlier Opposition social security spokesmen. In the run-up to the general election, the time has come for the Opposition to come clean on their pensions policy. After all, many things depend on that policy. Opposition spokesmen cannot come to the Dispatch Box and lecture private schemes, personal pension providers and occupational pension providers without coming clean on their own ideas and policies.

  217
  The Government can claim to have price protected the basic pension. They have also reduced inflation. That was a social evil for pensioners, who saw their savings eroded. The reduction of inflation was a substantial step forward. The Government have reformed occupational pensions to the undoubted and unquestioned benefit of millions of people. In addition, they have provided more options for the public, such as personal pensions.
  Against that background, I believe that we are in a better position to face the demands of the first 25 years of the next century than virtually any other country in the western world. A great deal still needs to be done, but we have taken giant steps forward. I congratulate the Government on what they have done in the areas of pensions and social security generally.
  6.23 pm
  Mr. Alan Howarth: Incapacity benefit has hardly been referred to so far. When it was set up, Ministers expected that about 220,000 people would come off benefit over about three years. It was part of a quest to reduce public expenditure in that area. How is it that, under the administrative arrangements that have now been established, Ministers will know that that is the position—if it is? Their computer programme makes it impossible for them to distinguish between present incapacity benefit claimants so as to determine who were previously claimants of invalidity benefit. Surely that is not a responsible way to proceed in an important and sensitive area. I believe that responsible Ministers would wish to monitor the impact of their new policy on the long-term sick and disabled as well as on public expenditure.
  It seems that Ministers' expectations of the number of claimants falling away, as it were, will not be met. I understand from a parliamentary answer that, over the first six months, only 19,188 claimants were refused incapacity benefit, of whom 6,520 appealed. In terms of administrative costs, the Benefits Agency's medical service has found it necessary to recruit another 220 doctors.
  That brings me to my second point on incapacity benefit. We understand that it is the Government's intention to privatise the Benefits Agency's medical service. Private health care firms are tendering to get their hands on a budget of £6.9 billion involving 1.6 million people. What is the rationale for that? The results of a survey of doctors indicate that they do not think that it would be useful for the service to be privatised.
  I understand that one of the organisations tendering is a well-known disability insurance group, which ran advertisements during the week of the introduction of incapacity benefit urging people to take out private insurance. It suggested that the benefit would be insufficient. It seems that there lies a considerable vested interest. I hope that Ministers will be careful when they evaluate that group's tender.
  I understand also that another bid comes from two civil servants who were involved in the design of the scheme. It is suggested—I am happy to be corrected—that those civil servants have been on paid leave while preparing their bid. I hope that Ministers will consider carefully the propriety and suitability of the civil servants' tender.
  I move on, perhaps more substantively, to a proposal for improvement. As Ministers review the operation of the scheme, I hope that they will find justification for
  218
  introducing a sliding scale of eligibility for people in the 55 to 65 age group. We all know that the real prospect of employment for people in that group who have suffered industrial injury or face continuing disability is extremely poor. Those who do not score the full 15 points know that to be a blighting reality in their life. I hope that Ministers will be able to find the generosity of intention and of fiscal margin to allow people after the age of 55 to qualify for benefit if they score fewer than the 15 points.
  I have in mind the sad case of one of my constituents who saw me recently. He had been off work for two years with a spine and neck problem. He took early retirement at the age of 55. His employer enhanced my constituent's pension on medical grounds because he recognised that he was no longer capable of work. Under the old system, my constituenty was able to receive invalidity benefit. As he took the new test, however, with the Benefits Agency's medical service and scored only 14 points, his benefit stopped. It stopped on 3 November, but he did not receive the courtesy of being informed of that until 8 November. In the case that I am outlining, my constituent's wife works. As a result, he receives no benefits. His wife's income is modest and they face a grim future. I fear that all too many people are in the same predicament.
  When unemployment was rising, the Government were content over the years that people should go on to the old invalidity benefit. It was presentationally advantageous to keep down the unemployment figures. It suited the Government well enough that people should be able to claim invalidity benefit during the traumatic period of the restructuring of some of the old, heavy and labour-intensive industries. It saddens me that, after those events, the Government reneged on the previous commitment, despite the fact that some six volumes of research commissioned by the DSS contained no evidence to justify the assertion, frequently made by Ministers, that far too many claimants of invalidity benefit were bogus.
  The reality is that, as the Government mismanaged the economy, they ran up a borrowing requirement of £50 billion. They needed to rebalance the public finances, and one of the ways in which they did so, to some significant extent, was by cutting contributory benefits for the long-term sick and disabled. They compounded the injury by increasing employees' national insurance contributions by 10 per cent. That is a sad history and I hope that Ministers will be able to alleviate the conditions under which the new incapacity benefit may be claimed.
  I now come to the Government's decision not to uprate one-parent benefit and the lone-parent premium. Lone parents have been among the principal sufferers of the widening inequality in society. The uprating—the policy context of the regulations that we are debating—is intended, as the Secretary of State told us, to save £5 billion by 2000 and to make room, as he explained quite explicitly, for tax cuts. We have already seen the 1p in the pound reduction in the basic rate of income tax, which is to be paid for by lone parents, young people and the old and the cold.
  In his speech, the Secretary of State did not provide the House with any thorough rationale—let alone a persuasive one—for the decision to freeze one-parent benefit and the lone-parent premium on income support. I do not believe that the policy has anything to do with the growth of social security expenditure, which is an issue—a problem—that he has been right to address systematically.

  219
  In July 1993, the Secretary of State said that the Government were looking at ways to use the social security system to ensure more responsibility in young people by making the option of single parenthood less attractive. He is indeed fulfilling that pledge.
  At the October 1993 Conservative party conference, we witnessed a hideously orchestrated campaign of vilification against single parents, which was one of the most shaming episodes in modern politics. I wrote an article in The Guardian, which was published on the first day of the Tory party conference, in which I asked my former party not to play that game. The difficulty is that my former colleagues do not read The Guardian. I dare say that if they had read it and seen my advice, they would have heeded it and history would have been very different, but that was not to be the case.
  We are seeing one more instalment of the policy in the order that we are debating. As my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) pointed out, it is fiscal tokenism. In the year to come, the Government will save only about £5 million by freezing benefits for lone parents. We are seeing the expression of a certain set of values and social and moral purposes that are harsh, unjust and smack of scapegoating. That would certainly seem to be so, given the disproportion of the policy and the fact that the number of unmarried teenage mothers, against whom Ministers' ire was directed in October 1993, had been falling since 1987. It now stands at about 44,000 out of 1.3 million lone parents.
  As all the surveys show, the vast majority of lone parents want to work—they are not the feckless or undeserving poor of scapegoat mythology. The Government's survey shows that 90 per cent. of unemployed lone parents want to work—and a growing number are doing so, thanks in no small measure to the Government's policy of family credit, which has had its positive uses. How right it has been—because we should help lone parents.
  If some hon. Members so disapprove of lone parents that they do not want to help them, surely they should at least want to help the children of lone parents. Lone parents and their children have a claim on all of us, being—as they are—poor and disadvantaged. That is a moral position, but it is improvident in terms of the economy not to support them because poverty begets poverty, and the burden on social security and the taxpayer grows all the time.
  Mr. Hawkins: Although I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern, I would have expected him—particularly with his background as a schoolmaster—not to use "scapegoat" as a verb.
  Mr. Howarth: If that is the only point on which the hon. Gentleman differs from me, I should be pleased, but I am not sure that it is.
  The poverty of lone parents is demonstrable. Forty per cent. of lone-parent families have an income of less than £100 a week, compared with only 4 per cent. of two-parent families. Almost six in 10 lone-parent families live in poverty, which is defined as income below 50 per cent. of average income after housing costs. The Government use that measure in certain publications.
  220
  Relative poverty matters very much indeed, because it means exclusion, alienation, demoralisation and, in all too many cases, under-achievement.
  The cost of help through the social security system to lone parents is not excessive by any reasonable standard. As we learnt today, out of a social security budget of £90 billion, some £9.5 billion is spent on lone parents, of which some £5.6 billion goes on income support and another £1 billion goes to lone parents who are in low-paid work. Do the Government really think it wrong to help people who are in poverty? The one-parent benefit is worth £6.30 a week; the lone-parent premium is worth £5.20 a week. These are, if we reflect on them, pitifully small figures. Together, they cost the taxpayer some £600 million a year, and that is eminently affordable. The £5 million that the Government hope to save is almost invisible in the public accounts.
  It would be right if the Secretary of State's objective were to provide equivalent opportunities and incentives for lone parents to match their circumstances—as nearly as he can—with those of two-parent families and to ensure them a decent standard of living. If those are indeed his purposes, he should not freeze the two benefits and embark on his strategy of removing the differential in benefits between lone parents and couples with children.
  The Secretary of State said that the benefits system gives special assistance for lone parents that couples do not have. It is absolutely right that it should do so. The costs of lone parenthood are higher. A study published at the end of last year under the auspices of the Rowntree Foundation, entitled "The Cost of Children and the Welfare State", found that the costs of a child relative to a single adult in a one-parent family are substantially higher than in a two-parent family. The cost of a child under the age of 11 is 30 per cent. of the cost of a single adult in a one-parent family, but only 20 per cent. in a two-parent family. When a child is over the age of 11, the differential is wider—the figures being 51 per cent. and 33 per cent. respectively.
  The freeze will, over time, increase child poverty. As it is, a lone parent cannot adequately or decently bring up children on income support. Research by Elizabeth Dowler and Clare Calvert for the Family Policy Study Centre, entitled "Nutrition and Diet in Lone Parent Families in London", concludes that, on current levels of benefit, lone parents
  "cannot afford to eat healthily."
  In 1992, 78 per cent. of lone parents were living at or below income support level, compared with 18 per cent. of two-parent families. "Evaluating the Social Fund", a study commissioned by the Government and published in 1992, found that 35 per cent. of lone parents on low incomes lacked adequate bedding, that 31 per cent. lacked hot water, that 58 per cent. had problems with heating and that 38 per cent. had problems with damp.
  Lone parents, of all people, should not have their benefits frozen; arguably, indeed, their benefits should be increased. Lone parents already bear a stigma—a stigma that was abating before the Government revived it. Inevitably, child care is a problem for many of them. The Government's disregard in relation to family credit, disability working allowance, housing benefit and council tax benefit is helpful as far as it goes, but it does not extend to children aged over 11—notwithstanding the higher relative costs associated with such children—or to second or subsequent children.

  221
  We must approve of the requirement to use registered child minders or nurseries, but it means that those lone parents who most need work often cannot be helped by the disregard because they cannot find work whose hours match the requirement relating to child minders and nurseries. Supermarkets, for instance, often tell those applying for work that they must do evening work at first, before being able to work hours that match school or nursery hours or the hours during which registered child minders are available.
  If a claimant is on full family credit, the disregard will not help: it is, after all, a disregard rather than an allowance, and cannot raise the level of benefit above family credit.
  I feel that there is a case for increasing the disregard of child care costs, and, indeed, for extending it to all benefits. The Government would do that if they were serious, but at present the disregard does not apply to claimants of income support.
  I hope that the Government will carefully monitor the nursery voucher pilot scheme. If the pessimists are right, it may take places away from local education authorities and subsidise private nurseries, whose fees could well be beyond the capacity of lone parents on low incomes.
  In framing the policy on benefits for lone parents, Ministers—Conservative Ministers certainly—should bear in mind the fact that it may not be appropriate for many lone parents to work. I understand that 63 per cent. of children of single mothers are under five, and it may be in the emotional and intellectual interests of the children for their mothers—or, perhaps, fathers—to stay at home. All too often, the circumstances of lone parenthood are sad: someone may have become a lone parent recently through bereavement, separation or divorce. Benefits policy should not drive such people out of the home and into jobs until they are ready to take such action.
  Lone parents face a Kafkaesque maze of benefits, child care interactions, grants and loans. However helpful the whole policy apparatus may be, many become baffled and dispirited as they try to thread their way through that maze.
  According to paragraph 12.2.2 of "Evaluating the Social Fund",
  "loan recipients are less likely to own their own homes, more likely to live in more crowded accommodation and on average have lower equivalent incomes than people given grants."
  Certainly at that time, the administration of the social fund appeared to give less help to the least well off, including many lone parents.
  Mr. Corbyn: My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Is he aware that the disgraceful attacks on lone parents made by the Secretary of State and others at successive party conferences have been very damaging to the self-esteem of those parents and their children, and have led to the stigmatisation of a group that ought to be recognised and supported in the way that my hon. Friend proposes?
  Mr. Howarth: I agree with my hon. Friend.
  The Government are keen to provide work incentives in the benefits system, but it is hard to cross the bridge between income support and paid employment. Too many
  222
  lone parents fall into unemployment and poverty traps created by means-tested benefits. They have a cash-flow problem: while they wait to be paid by their new employers, they are losing benefit and probably incurring additional child care costs. The Government's new rule that housing benefit must be paid in arrears will exacerbate that difficulty for those who are doing their best to obtain work.
  It is commonplace for landlords to ask for a deposit and a month's rent in advance. I fear that it will be harder for lone parents, and others, to make a move if they receive housing benefit in arrears. In any event, because of other changes in housing benefit policy—which are the subject of other regulations—a shortfall between the required rental payment and the housing benefit that is available will become more likely following the introduction of a local reference rent.
  Moreover, in the Housing Bill, the Government propose to allow landlords to evict tenants when rents have been in arrears for eight rather than 13 weeks. That will add to lone parents' insecurity and practical difficulties. The lone-parent premium on housing benefit is now less generous than it was in 1988, when the benefits system treated lone parents as couples. That was right: after all, lone parents need accommodation of virtually the same size, and their housing costs are comparable to those of couples.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury emphasised, one-parent benefit helps people to move from welfare into work. It is disregarded against family credit and disability working allowance. It is perverse, in the Government's own terms, to embark on an erosion of its value; a similar perversity characterised the introduction of a means-tested jobseeker's allowance after six months instead of 12. I assume that both policy shifts result from Treasury short-termism rather than vindictiveness. I hope so, anyway.
  Which is a better employment promotion policy? Is it better to take 1p off income tax—as the Secretary of State contended—or to address policy scientifically to the unemployment and poverty traps and redesign the interaction between the tax and benefits systems, over time and as resources permit, to make it easier for people to move from welfare to work? That is what the Labour party proposes. I do not think that there can be any doubt. It is extraordinarily simplistic to suppose that there is some mechanistic and inevitable connection between modest reductions in income tax and the generation of more jobs in the economy. That policy of freezing one-parent benefit runs against any rational welfare-to-work strategy and will compound other labour market difficulties faced by lone parents.
  We know from the Government's evidence published in November 1992 in the Employment Gazette that lone parents tend to be less well qualified for the labour market. They lack work experience because of the circumstances in which they have found themselves. Again, because they are caring for children, they cannot so readily accommodate themselves to employers' requirements. They need flexibility to be able to attend to their children's needs, to visit schools, to take their children to the doctor and to look after a sick child. Less flexibility is available to them in terms of travelling to work.

  223
  Lone parents confronted with those constraints as they enter the labour market face a growing number of employers who insist on irregular hours contracts to suit themselves and who aim to recruit more and more people in temporary work. It therefore becomes harder and harder for lone parents to plan and organise domestic life in manageable relation to work. What may be just in time for employers is all too frequently too late for lone parents.
  I welcome of course the Government's new pilot scheme to help lone parents to find jobs or training, and the extra 18,000 after school hours child care places. If only that were more representative of the character and thrust of policy, I would be much happier. Lone parents need sympathetic and intelligent policies to enable them to sustain an adequate and decent existence with their children, and to take their place in employment and in society with confidence and dignity. I fear that the policies that are needed to achieve those ends are not in place.
  6.51 pm
  Mr. David Shaw: I first bring the House's attention to the fact that today many of my constituents, including those affected by the uprating statement, have had an absolutely miserable day. The headline in tonight's Evening Standard is that Dover has been cut off. According to the contacts that I have made, it has been cut off by the snow and by the weather conditions. I hope that I shall not be stretching your indulgence too much, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if I say that we desperately need to upgrade the A2 road link to Dover and to have the snow cleared. It has been especially bad in Deal, where the high street has been flooded by the sea. The council and emergency services have done wonderful work. I join, I hope, other hon. Members in paying tribute to the emergency services that have had a difficult day in Dover and Deal.
  I shall return to the subject of social security before pressing you too far, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Social security uprating is an important annual event. Social security costs £90 billion—one third of Government expenditure. As we all know, that system can easily go out of control. Compared with other European countries, however, our social security system is much improved. We have better funded pensions and significantly lower unemployment.
  Sweden used to be the Labour party's model when it came to social security, but Labour has been forced to abandon that model. Sweden's national debt is about 125 per cent. of its annual income. There are doubts as to whether, in the current circumstances, it can repay its national debt. In comparison, the United Kingdom's national debt is about 56 per cent. of its annual income—about half and considerably less than Sweden's debt. We are in a much better position than Sweden.
  How did Sweden achieve that? It achieved it through unrealistic upratings of its social security system—we are not going down that path, thank goodness—and by paying for that system from borrowing. One third of its national debt is owned by foreigners. It has borrowed from every capital market in the world that it could. Our borrowing is tiny in proportion to Sweden's. It has got away with it only because it is a relatively small country borrowing
  224
  on the international money markets. Sweden, the Labour party's previous model on social security, has failed totally and utterly with regard to "socialist" security.
  Mr. Corbyn: During our memorable visit to Sweden—it is hard to forget it—the hon. Gentleman and I disagreed on just about everything and still do, but will he concede just two points? The social security and the welfare state systems in Sweden have led to it having the highest living standards in the world and being in the best position to weather economic storms created from outside, and there is a consensus that the state has an enormous role to play in ensuring that people do not go destitute when out of work and when they pass the normal retirement age. That is in sharp contrast with his ideas and with what his Government have achieved.
  Mr. Shaw: I still disagree with the hon. Gentleman, even in the House of Commons at Westminster. Sweden's standard of living owes a lot to its hydro-electricity industry and cheap electricity costs, and, as I said, to the fact that one third of its national debt has been financed from abroad. Individuals in other countries have loaned the money to Sweden so that it can have that standard of living, but the day of reckoning has arrived. Its national debt is more than its national income in a year and it is in a grave financial position.
  The pensions issue is one of the most important in social security and in the uprating statement. The impact of both private and public pensions and today's uprating statement is critical. In this country, we are encouraging the building of funds for retirement so that, one way or another, people have their own pension fund, whether it be a communal pension fund through the occupational pension scheme or an individual pension fund through private arrangements. We should never forget that many people save through life insurance with profits policies and that, through those savings, they enjoy another means of income in retirement.
  Sir Donald Thompson: Does my hon. Friend realise that the amount that people are saving through pension schemes—£100 million a year—is greater than Government spending on social security? He and I would agree that that must be protected, but it is a huge amount of personal saving.
  Mr. Shaw: I agree with my hon. Friend that people are saving a phenomenal amount of money through private and personal pension schemes, through occupational pension schemes and through life insurance. As a result, many more people will find that their retirement is securely financed by equity investments in British industry. In the past 16 years, that has been one of the key points in the Conservative approach that all hon. Members should support.
  We have transformed the incomes of people in retirement. Under Labour and even some previous Conservative Governments, people in retirement relied too much on the state system, which has not funded or served them well, but private pensions, private savings and private life insurance are giving them a much better retirement than before. I am delighted that today 70 per cent. of people retiring have extra income sources other than the state pension. I want more and more of the remaining 30 per cent. to be brought into private pension

  225
  schemes and into other saving schemes, which can give them the opportunity to have additional sources of income.
  In the main, Governments do not operate pension schemes other than a "pay-as-you-go" state pension scheme. Singapore has been mentioned, and it is a bit of an exception, but there is a question mark—even the Labour party recognises this—over the way in which its scheme operates and investment returns are achieved in it, and whether those returns are adequate. "Pay-as-you-go" schemes, however, are a disaster. No fund builds up and the state must still meet the liabilities. That is fine if a country has a young and increasing population, but if it has an aging and decreasing population, it is disastrous. Many European countries are faced with that disastrous position. We have ensured, however, that we shall not be faced with that, even though our population is aging and even though, in recent years, the population increase has levelled out—it is not increasing at the previous rate. We have a much better funded system than other countries in Europe.
  I am pleased to say that the uprating does not follow European pension policy. Other European Union states have given commitments to their populations that they simply cannot meet; they cannot afford them. In many European countries, public sector workers have been given extraordinarily generous pension arrangements that are more favourable than those in the private sector. That has led to strikes in France and protests in Germany about pension schemes. Indeed, Germany has had to amend some of its retirement ages. France has still to face up to the problems.
  One of the reasons why I am against a single currency is that, as part of the arrangements, we would end up having to foot the pension liabilities of France and Germany. I do not see why British taxpayers and pensioners should have to suffer as a result of the problems in France and Germany, which have been created by their Governments' unrealistic pension commitments.
  The United Kingdom has an affordable pensions system, which the Government have made more affordable. Labour's plans for pensions are disastrous. There is a question mark over whether the Labour Front-Bench team wants state direction of pension fund investments. At every general election and in every Labour party policy document on industry that I have seen, the Labour party has referred to short-termism, long-termism and the role that the state can play in guiding investment in the economy. That, to my way of thinking, is a form of state direction of pension fund investments. It would be a disaster. It would reduce the yields on our pension funds and reduce our pensioners' yields from their pensions.
  Sir Donald Thompson: If inflation is to continue falling or remains stable, as we hope it will, the yield on pensions must be low unless there is a capital injection or an injection as a result of the fund's expansion. That can happen only in the private sector. The public sector always sucks out; the private sector enables things to grow. Consequently, the yields on pensions can increase only if most pension funds are in the private sector.
  Mr. Shaw: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. In my view—judging from what my hon. Friend is saying,
  226
  it seems that he shares it—the next general election should be fought on the basis of which party has the policies to increase capital value within pension funds. That ability will be vital to many pensioners. The Labour party has never shown an ability to increase the yields and capital values of investments in the stock market, which determine the level of pension funds and returns on pensions.
  That is why the stakeholding policies of the Leader of the Opposition and the Labour party, which many people in the Labour party do not even seem to understand, are rubbish. Stakeholding would kill the dividend returns of British business. It is designed to promote the interests of trade unions and creditors—all very fine and wonderful. Yet the shareholders put the capital in business, and in most of British industry those shares are in pension funds, life insurance policies and private pensions. It is vital that those pension funds should maintain their investment returns and that the Labour party's stakeholding policies should be stopped from damaging those returns.
  Labour would definitely attack pension fund moneys. One has only to look at Wobbly Thursday—as it was nicknamed—just before the previous election. When the markets took fright at the possibility of a Labour Government, £6 billion was knocked off share values overnight. Our pension funds were hit to the tune of £5 billion of that £6 billion. The National Union of Mineworkers pension fund lost £500 million in value on Wobbly Thursday, when it was thought that there would be a Labour victory. That is why every mineworker with a pension should vote Conservative if they want a decent pension in future. Their pensions depend on a Conservative Government.
  Today we have heard Labour policies—or rather we have not heard them.
  The Minister for Social Security and Disabled People (Mr. Alistair Burt): What policies?
  Mr. Shaw: As my hon. Friend says, we all wonder what Labour's policies on pensions are. What are the guidelines? If Sir Richard Scott had been asked to examine Labour's pension policies and the guidelines, would he have found anything out? How long would the report have been? It would have had to be more than 1,900 pages if he was to find out every approach to policy that Labour is trying to take and every guideline—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. I do not recall Sir Richard Scott being asked to look into the Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order 1996. Will the hon. Member get back to the order? He is straying pretty wide from it.
  Mr. Shaw: I am grateful to you for your strictures, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was concerned to contrast the Opposition's policies and how they would impact on the uprating statement with what the Government have achieved through it and the way in which many pensioners will benefit.
  Mr. Hawkins: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is a matter of record that in 1985 Labour proposed to repatriate investments held by pension funds overseas and

  227
  said that the repatriated investments would be placed in a new "national investment bank", which would be used to subsidise and control industries unable to attract investment under normal commercial criteria? The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) was contrasting Government policy in 1985 with that in 1995. Is it not more relevant for the British people to look at Labour's policy in 1985 and ask whether it is still the same today?
  Mr. Shaw: My hon. Friend has pre-empted my next point. I was just about to point out that not many Labour councils back Labour party policy in that regard. Twenty to 30 per cent. of Labour councils' pension funds are invested overseas. They must therefore be extremely grateful that we abolished exchange controls in 1979 and enabled them to get returns, so that council employees and former council employees could enjoy good pensions. Conservative policies on pensions, which give rise to the uprating statement, have been backed by Labour councils. Our privatisation policy has been backed by many Labour councils' pension funds, to the extent that 10 to 20 per cent. of their investments are in privatised industries. That has meant that the uprating statement could be much more favourable than it would otherwise have been.
  Whether run by Labour councils or Conservative councils under the Government, pension funds have enjoyed much better rates of return as a result of our policy of encouraging privatisation and abolishing exchange controls, to enable many investments to be made overseas. Conservative policy on the nation's pension funds has worked.
  I should also like to draw the House's attention to fraud in social security and the impact that it has on the uprating statement. There is concern about housing benefit fraud. The Social Security Select Committee has undertaken an inquiry into fraud in the £10 billion housing benefit budget. The situation is absolutely horrendous. The evidence that we have received so far is worrying. Tenants are at it, landlords are at it, and in some cases, council staff are at it.
  Sir Donald Thompson: And some councils.
  Mr. Shaw: Indeed, I believe that even some Labour councillors have been at it as well. Fraud in housing benefit is at a record level despite the fact that many people are working to try to prevent it and local government has slowly been waking up to the extent of it.
  I must tell my hon. Friend the Minister how worried I am by the evidence to the Select Committee, which suggests that discovered fraud is running at 6 per cent. of housing benefit. Some people who have come before the Committee believe that fraud could easily amount to 12 per cent. of housing benefit, because obviously not every fraud is discovered, and it has even been suggested that the fraud level could be as high as 18 per cent. That would take the total to almost £2 billion. That is a horrendous level of fraud—equivalent to a penny on income tax or, as I should like to see it, a penny off income tax. We must get housing benefit fraud down, and we must work harder at doing so.
  I went to my local council to discuss the issue last week. In Dover council, officers are worried because there are many pressures on seaside towns with guest houses,
  228
  and we are going through a difficult time. I understand that there are concerns about criminals trying to buy certain guest houses, and other criminal landlords trying to buy up properties. It is believed that some of them may be laundering drug profits. They seek to get hold of properties and put in tenants at unrealistic rents, which involve in addition the possible supply of drugs.
  Mr. Hawkins: My hon. Friend will know that that problem affects my constituency too, as well as many other seaside towns. Would he be interested to know that a sitting Labour councillor in my constituency has been heard boasting that he intends to become a millionaire with the profits that he makes from the "DSS hostels" that he owns and operates?
  Mr. Shaw: That is worrying. I am glad that my hon. Friend has expressed his concern on that subject. Someone came to my constituency surgery who felt that he should be paid full housing benefit of £100 a week rent in Dover. I realise that that is the sort of rent one might have to pay for a flat in London, but even in London one would get a considerable flat for £100 a week. It is certainly not the sort of rent that a housing benefit claimant needs to pay in Dover. Plenty of them live on less.
  I am seriously worried about the sort of landlord who may try to charge such a rent, and whether such people are being wholly honest and reasonable in their demands or whether they are part of the alleged criminal fraternity that worries my council officers in the east Kent area. We must do a lot more to discover where the frauds are, and to reduce the present level of fraud.
  The other day we heard evidence that there are as many as 77 million national insurance numbers in existence, for a population of only 59 million. We know that there must be some additional national insurance numbers, because widows are entitled to benefits based on their dead husbands' contributions; there will always be more national insurance numbers in existence than the current population of the United Kingdom. In addition, millions of people who have worked here and paid contributions here, but who now work abroad, have a claim on our social security system through their national insurance numbers.
  None the less, it is incredible that there should be 77 million numbers for a population of 59 million. The system that has grown up under Governments of all political persuasions started as a manual system, and although it has now been computerised, it still has all the weaknesses of a manual system, with the result that many of the current national insurance numbers should not exist. For example, married women appear under their former national insurance numbers, and some people manage to get hold of numbers to which they have no right. When police and fraud investigators go into houses, they sometimes discover 30 national insurance numbers in a briefcase—fraudulent numbers obtained by sophisticated fraudsters.
  We must stop those frauds and gain control of the national insurance number system. We must have social security identity cards, and we must have them soon, because the level of fraud is too high. The Government must use every possible method to ensure that the proposed new system is set up as fast as possible.

  229
  A clear message comes across from social security—that welfare can easily discourage work, and that it can encourage fraud and abuse. The House must consistently keep up the pressure to ensure that that is not allowed to happen.
  The uprating statement represents a fair increase, which in many cases is above both current and forecast levels of inflation. The uprating is taking place at a time when the social security system is more affordable than ever before—certainly more so than those of our European partners. We must thank the Conservative Government and the Secretary of State for ensuring that we have such a good social security system today. It is much better than the system that we had in 1979, and the Government are to be congratulated on reshaping it so successfully.
  7.15 pm
  Ms Liz Lynne: I shall not speak at length on all the orders and regulations, but shall concentrate on a few. Of course, any uprating of social security benefits is welcome, but I am worried about the exceptions—the one-parent benefit and the lone-parent premium. I gather that in the long term the Government may be thinking of merging one-parent benefit into a special rate of child benefit and lone-parent premium into a special rate of family premium. I do not believe that those benefits should be frozen before we know what will replace them.
  Let me give the House a few facts about lone parents. The DSS's own research, entitled "Changes in Lone Parenthood 1989 to 1993", says that one third of lone parents without paid work experience severe hardship, that lone parents are generally worse off than anyone else and that poverty is commonplace. Indeed, 40 per cent. of one-parent families live on less that £100 a week, compared with only 4 per cent. of two-parent families. We must judge the Government's failure to uprate those benefits in line with inflation against that background.
  To the Government and the Minister it may seem that we are talking about small amounts of money in real terms, but those sums are of real significance to the lone parents who are trying to stave off debt, hardship and sometimes great poverty. I do not know whether the Minister has experienced that level of poverty, or had to try to manage on the sort of money about which we are talking. A cut of even a couple of pounds a week in benefits can seem enormous to people trying to manage on such incomes. Many people cannot afford to put 50p in their gas meters, so they and their children have to wear extra clothes because they cannot afford to have the gas fire on all the time. That is what living on benefits really means.
  To cut one-parent benefit in real terms—that is what is happening—is incredibly foolish. That benefit is effective against benefit dependency, because it is not means-tested, so if a lone parent gets work it is not taken away.
  I understand that the present Government introduced lone-parent premium. The Minister can correct me if I am wrong, but surely they did that in recognition of the fact that lone parents face extra costs. Household bills are not halved just because someone lives on her own. I believe strongly that both these real-terms cuts in benefits are wrong.
  I shall now briefly mention pensions, and particularly the low take-up of income support among pensioners. A recent Department of Social Security report said that
  230
  one third of pensioners who are entitled to claim income support do not do so. They must be encouraged to claim, especially at this time of year because they will lose their entitlement to cold weather payments if they are not on income support. I honestly wonder how many of those 305 pensioners in 1994 who had hypothermia listed as the cause of death on their death certificates died as a result of missing out on income support and on cold weather payments. We cannot address in isolation the level of the basic state pension and ignore those who will lose out, and the Government must make sure that all pensioners who are entitled to claim do so.
  We are debating the Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order 1996, which will mean that individuals on salary-related schemes are guaranteed a payment this year as good as the state earnings-related pension that they would have received had they not come out of that scheme. I welcome that, but I hope that the Government do not change the rules next year or the year after. I suspect, however, that that is what they will do.
  I turn now to the Child Support Agency and the regulations relating to it. The maximum that the CSA can deduct from a person on income support is currently £2.35, but that will rise to £4.80. Between April and August 1995, some 45 per cent. of the 46,000 full assessments—a staggering proportion—were for £2.35 or less. In other words, 45 per cent., or 20,700, of the assessments were made of those on income support.
  There is a misguided view around that large amounts of money are being taken from rich fathers who have never paid, but that could not be further from the truth. Everybody wants liable fathers to pay, and nobody disputes that. But let us not pretend that hiking up maintenance from the group of liable fathers to whom I have referred—those on income support—is anything more than redistributing poverty. The Minister must explain how parents will be able to manage from April if he doubles their maintenance payments. At present, they pay £2.35 out of £46.50. In April, the payment goes up to £4.80 from £47.90. I thought that income support was uprated in line with inflation because it was paid to people living on subsistence levels, and that they could not manage on anything less. How can a liable father expect to pay double from his income support when he is on subsistence levels at the moment?
  Mr. Nigel Evans: Is the hon. Lady saying that people on income support should pay nothing to the Child Support Agency for the upbringing of their children? What is she saying, exactly? Surely those men have the same responsibilities as every other father in the land.
  Ms Lynne: I agree that all parents are responsible for their children, but to double the payments for those on subsistence levels as the Government are doing is totally wrong and will force liable parents into even more poverty. The hon. Gentleman is right that every parent should pay for their children, and I do not dispute that. But the Government cannot get away with trying to make liable fathers suffer more. Those fathers often suffer because they are not able to visit their child as regularly as they would like, and the child from that family is already suffering emotional damage. We do not want those parents to suffer unnecessarily. Yes, the Government should go after fathers who have never paid a penny—

  231
  all of us would welcome that. But targeting those fathers on income support and increasing their maintenance is totally wrong. The emotional damage that that does to children is horrendous.
  Let us look at the costs of the Child Support Agency. The CSA costs £192 million to run and has raised £76.4 million in new maintenance. The regulations are an attempt to improve those dismal and damning figures by resorting yet again to targeting those who are least able to afford to pay.
  Turning to some of the other orders and regulations, the Social Security (Incapacity for Work) (General) Amendment Regulations 1996 propose merely an uprating in line with inflation from £44 to £45.50, which is the amount that people on incapacity benefit can earn by voluntary or therapeutic work, which is restricted to 16 hours. The trouble is that few people are aware of the exemptions, and some people again are afraid to take them up.
  Another problem is that the measure is inflexible. If a person earns more than over £44, or £45.50 from April, he will lose all benefit for that week. His benefit is not reduced pound for pound. Despite that, I am pleased that the amount is going up in line with inflation, but we must make sure that more people are aware of the exemptions.
  We must also make sure that people do not lose incapacity benefit at the rate they are doing at present. On Saturday a man came to my surgery who had been receiving invalidity benefit, and later incapacity benefit. He was seen by a Benefits Agency doctor a year ago and told that he would never work again because of his medical condition. He then went for the new medical test for incapacity benefit and was told that, despite the Benefits Agency doctor saying one year before that he would not work again, he could not receive incapacity benefit and would have to go to an appeal.
  That is happening time and time again. People are being denied incapacity benefit, and are refused money because the medical test has not been strictly adhered to or for various other reasons. That money is later reinstated on appeal. That is a waste of money to the DSS, and it causes a great deal of distress and pain to those who are denied incapacity benefit for a short time. Although I welcome the general uprating, the Government have to look seriously at the damage that their legislation is doing to individuals—not just incapacity benefit legislation, but the Child Support Act 1991. I shall be voting specifically against the child support regulations.
  7.27 pm
  Mr. Nick Hawkins: I shall begin by talking about the importance of the campaign against benefit fraud. My constituency has been fortunate enough to be the beneficiary of substantial operations by the anti-benefit fraud squad, and I have been able to participate in dawn raids with the DSS fraud squad. Two operations in two or three years—Operation Sea Breeze and Operation Gold Coast—have made substantial savings for the taxpayer. In seaside resorts all around the country, there has been a continuing campaign by the DSS anti-fraud squad to cut the vast amount of fraud against the taxpayer. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said in opening the debate, it is crucial that we save money by cracking down on fraud so that that money can be spent on those who really need it.
  232
  There is nothing worse than Labour councillors participating in and assisting the ripping-off of the housing benefit budget. I warn Labour Members that, until they rid their party of the freeloaders—some of whom have been on final shortlists for Labour parliamentary candidacies, although it is acknowledged that they participate in what most ordinary voters and I would regard as an evil trade—they can never be taken seriously in dealing with this or any other matter to do with the public purse.
  The Government rightly believe that the best way to help people in need is to stop money going to those who are not entitled to it. Last year, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced an investment of £100 million in the campaign against benefit fraud, which will save at least £400 million in fraud this year. The programme of visits to the homes of benefit claimants and the reviews of claims introduced in July 1995 have already saved £70 million. One can judge from that the huge amount of benefit fraud that is going on.
  On a dawn raid, as I was fortunate enough to see, one often finds that the landlord is submitting housing benefit claims for perhaps 12, 14 or 20 residents, but that every single room is vacant. All the names are fictitious. That is the sort of rip-off that is happening in seaside resorts around the country.
  Unscrupulous landlords are advertising in magazines that are circulated free in inner-city areas, such as Glasgow, Leeds and Birmingham, and throughout the industrial parts of the country. In effect and sometimes in so many words, they are saying, "Come and claim your dole by the sea." It is an outrageous abuse and it is changing the nature of our seaside resorts.
  Not only is there benefit fraud but damage is done to the tourist trade. I will not try your patience, Mr. Deputy Speaker, by extending too far beyond the subject of social security, but when calculating the costs of benefit fraud it is important to assess the damage that is done to the legitimate tourist trade. Once a house in a holiday street in a tourist area, such as Blackpool, Brighton, Bournemouth or Margate, is in multiple occupation or becomes what is known in common parlance as a DSS hostel, the legitimate hotels soon go out of business. Often, the few residents in the hostels are on drugs. Often, the hostels are locked early in the morning and the residents are out on the streets injecting themselves with drugs or drinking. They accost genuine holiday makers and their children. Of course, the hotels go out of business, because they lose bookings as a result.
  That is an important matter and I pay tribute to many of my hon. Friends who have done so much work with me and my colleagues in the campaign to change the law and crack down on DSS hostels. My hon. Friends the Members for Blackpool, North (Mr. Elletson), for Scarborough (Mr. Sykes) and for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) are at this moment trying to change the law in a Committee upstairs.
  It is important to note that, since April last year, the Benefits Agency has undertaken data matching to cross-check all benefit claims for consistency. In that initiative alone, £16 million has been saved for the taxpayer since last April. A further investment of £230 million is being made this year, which will increase the savings to almost £900 million next year. Measures will focus on preventing fraud and deterring people from attempting fraud.

  233
  I welcome the steps that are being taken on asylum seekers. This country has always been a haven to those in genuine need of asylum and long may that continue. From January next year, however, only genuine refugees will be entitled to benefits. Those who claim asylum immediately they enter the United Kingdom will be entitled to benefit, but only until the immigration authorities have decided on their case. Those who are already in the UK—
  Mr. Chris Smith: Is the hon. Gentleman seriously trying to tell us that there is a new definition of a genuine asylum seeker, which is someone who puts in his application at the port of entry, rather than subsequently? If that is the case, he is ignoring the evidence of the facts, which show that the Government accept as genuine refugees a higher proportion of those who put in their applications subsequently.
  Mr. Hawkins: I acknowledge that, but it is important to note that many people who come to this country initially as students or tourists decide to claim asylum only after many months, if not longer. Often, they are the freeloaders, as the hon. Gentleman knows only too well. Those people will not be eligible until after their claim has been decided. If they are then found to be genuinely entitled to asylum, as many are, as the hon. Gentleman suggested, of course they will be eligible for benefit if they cannot get work.
  Given that 70 per cent. of people who claim asylum originally entered the country on tourist or student visas, or as illegal immigrants, surely the hon. Gentleman would not claim that they are all genuine asylum seekers. I see the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) shaking his head and I am glad that he acknowledges that point.
  Ms Lynne: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that a number of genuine asylum seekers will lose out? As Labour Front Benchers have pointed out, many genuine asylum seekers apply in-country, on the same day as they arrive, the next day or perhaps a week later. They are genuine asylum seekers and they will not receive social security benefits. They will be destitute.
  Mr. Hawkins: Those who apply the same day, the next day or a week later, will not suffer. [HON. MEMBERS: "They will."] No. I am talking about the important need to crack down on bogus asylum seekers. It is important that the British taxpayer is not ripped off by bogus asylum seekers. Most voters and most of the people support that view. If the hon. Lady and Labour Front Benchers are suggesting that they would carry on paying out benefit willy-nilly to people who apply for asylum, even if those people turn out to be bogus, they will not have the support of the country.
  Ms Lynne rose—
  Mr. Hawkins: No, I must make some progress, and I have given way to the hon. Lady once.
  In the continuing crackdown on benefit fraud, it is important to increase home visits. I am delighted that the Benefits Agency staff will follow up at least 30 per cent. of new benefit claims next year with home visits and that other checks will also be increased.
  234
  It is also important to develop new technology and I am pleased that, next year, the agency expects to award a contract for the automation of services at post office counters, which will include testing of the benefit payment card, and that, in a separate initiative, local authorities will also be able to use a computer system to cross-check benefit claims. The people will be looking carefully at Labour and Liberal Democrat-controlled local authorities to find out whether they use that system. Once the initiative has been introduced, there will be much criticism if only the Conservative authorities use it.
  I am pleased that, since 1993, local authorities have been able to earn funds by detecting fraud against housing and council tax benefits, although Labour-controlled Blackpool council has not been at all prominent in using that opportunity to earn funds for the people of Blackpool. It has a particularly abject record in cracking down on fraud, no doubt for the reasons on which I touched earlier.
  I am pleased that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said that the subsidies will be increased for local authorities that detect fraud in housing and council tax benefits in 1996–97. Local authorities will also be able to bid for new money to pay for innovative schemes to combat fraud and no less than £18 million will be made available for such schemes.
  On housing benefit, local authorities will have the discretion to make the first payment payable to the landlord, which will undoubtedly stop tenants running off with it before it reaches the landlord. From October, all new claims for housing benefit from private sector and housing association tenants will be paid in arrears. Where payments are made directly to landlords, they will be made four-weekly in arrears, saving £40 million in the first year.
  It is important to examine how the Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen approach the need to make savings in our social security budget. I was absolutely fascinated to see the letter from the shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury to the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury. I am sure that he and the shadow Chief Secretary will have some interesting discussions with the civil service trade unions—many of which, of course, sponsor Labour Members—particularly when the shadow Chief Secretary has clearly acknowledged in his letter many of the measures that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has spoken about in this debate, particularly under the heading "Changes to Location".
  Mr. Chris Smith: I have been listening with care to the hon. Gentleman. Can he tell me the name of one member of the parliamentary Labour party who is sponsored by a civil service trade union?
  Mr. Hawkins: I am not able to give the hon. Gentleman a particular name, but I have no doubt that research will enable me to answer that question. Perhaps, in the time-honoured phrase, I could write to the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Corbyn: Before the hon. Gentleman gets completely carried away with next week's headlines in the Blackpool local press, I should tell him that no civil service union is affiliated to the Labour party. It would, therefore, be quite difficult for a civil service union to

  235
  sponsor a Labour Member of Parliament. The only way in which such a union might be involved in such a sponsorship would be if it obtained a consultancy with an hon. Member from the Tory, Labour or any other party; so perhaps the hon. Gentleman should desist from this rather ludicrous line of inquiry.
  Mr. Hawkins: I understand that the hon. Gentleman is sponsored by Unison, which is a public sector trade union. I do not see—and nor will the people of this country—a huge distinction there. The hon. Gentleman is seeking to make a distinction without a difference.
  In his letter, which is of great interest, the shadow Chief Secretary says:
  "There may be scope for rationalising the location of various DSS activities. The development of the site at Longbenton on Tyneside under the PFI clearly points in this direction and the the"—
  this is perhaps not literate English—
  "closure of other sites".
  Some proof-reading is required there, but the point is clear.
  When Labour Front Benchers examine this issue, they will have to consider what they are going to do about their previous proposals for a flexible decade of retirement. I am fascinated that so many Labour party spokesmen have said that they support a flexible decade of retirement, but that they have unaccountably ignored the fact that the vast majority of people would choose to take retirement at the earliest possible date to which they were entitled. If Labour Front Benchers' proposals for a flexible decade of retirement were to be introduced and allowed everyone who chose to claim a full pension from the age of 60, and of course most people would, the practical effect is that it would cost £13 billion a year.
  Have the Labour Front-Bench spokesmen cleared those proposals with the shadow Chancellor? I suspect that they have not. Similarly, the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury refused to say whether the measures that he mentioned in his speech would be reversed by the Labour party. Unless Labour Front Benchers are prepared to answer those questions, their criticisms of the measures cannot be taken remotely seriously.
  It is crucial to recognise how strong is our position on pension provision. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State recently said, in the inaugural Politeia lecture:
  "The OECD recently contrasted Britain's position on pensions, health and education with that of other developed countries. The OECD forecast each country's national debt assuming they continue where their present pension systems and levels of taxes and charges. By 2030 in France and Germany"—
  as my right hon. Friend pointed out—
  "the national debt will have about doubled and will exceed the national income. In Japan, where the population is aging particularly fast, debt will reach three times national income. By contrast, Britain's second tier funded pensions place us in an almost unique position. The OECD forecasts that we will have paid off our entire national debt and started to build up assets."
  My right hon. Friend was quite right to highlight that crucial success of Conservative policy.
  7.44 pm
  Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: So that the hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Hawkins) does not get too excited, I am happy to say on the record, as it
  236
  is on the record, that I am sponsored by Unison and have been a member of that union for more than 20 years. I am proud to be a member of that union, and I am not paid anything by it. I am happy to support it in what it does because we need trade unions to deal with the type of Government that we have, who are introducing slave labour conditions in hospitals and many other places, as the current dispute at Hillingdon hospital shows.
  Mr. Nigel Evans: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that Unison pays nothing towards his local Labour association? If it does, does he not benefit from that?
  Mr. Corbyn: The hon. Gentleman knows full well what the arrangements are; nothing is paid personally to any Member of Parliament. If he cares to read the declarations of interest, he will note that a sum of money, which is listed, is paid in each constituency to the local Labour party to undertake electoral campaigns. Unfortunately, the same transparency does not apply to the Conservative party, which finds itself unable even to publish its annual accounts or to tell us from which overseas dictator or commodity stockbroker its money comes.
  Before I incur your wrath, Mr. Deputy Speaker—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are discussing regulations, not sponsorship.
  Mr. Corbyn: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  The subject of this debate should be the levels of poverty that exist in our society, and what is being done to eliminate those levels of poverty. If the few hon. Members who are present in the Chamber to discuss this issue asked you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to adjourn the House and chose to decamp to the Strand for half an hour, to walk up Charing Cross road or to look under Waterloo bridge, they would find several hundred people literally on the verge of freezing to death because they have no homes to go to. We would find that they are lacking benefits; those desperate people are the under-class of the so-called successful free market society that the Government have created.
  In every city in this country one will find beggars, young people who have been thrown out of their homes because their parents can no longer afford to keep them, and all the degradation that exists in a society in which the welfare system is breaking up, as ours is currently doing. Perhaps tonight, when the Secretary of State goes home to his house in the borough where I also live, instead of going in his ministerial car, he will take the bus or, better still, he will walk so that he can see the consequences of the Government's policies.
  If we look back and consider the so-called economic success, in 1992–93, there were 14.1 million people who were officially classified as poor, in comparison with the 5 million who were so classified in 1979. In 1979, one in 10 children were living in poverty in Britain. By 1993, one in three children were living in poverty. By the beginning of the 1990s, the fact that a quarter of Europe's poor people were in this country was the Government's great achievement.
  If we look at the other end of the scale, we find that the richest 10 per cent. of the population—this will probably please the Secretary of State, who apparently

  237
  finds this so amusing—have increased their wealth by 67 per cent. The poorest 10 per cent. are 18 per cent. worse off than they were 15 years ago. We have the largest growth in the disparity between rich people and poor people of almost any industrial country in the world, and the Secretary of State is proud of it. He is proud of the levels of poverty; he is proud of the aggrandisement of wealth among the speculative minority. Those issues need to be addressed very urgently, but the uprating statement and the Government's social security policies do nothing at all to achieve that.
  The Secretary of State told us that he is proud of the Government's achievements. Every year it seems that he has to find a new scapegoat. First, some years ago, we had the attack on 16 to 17-year-olds: "Take away their benefits; take away their board and lodging allowance; make them dependent on their parents." I will tell the Secretary of State the consequences of that. A young girl came to my advice surgery. She was desperate to get through her A-levels at school. The only way that her family was able to afford to keep together was by her working three evenings a week and two days at the weekend in a supermarket to make ends meet. School children are being forced into part-time work. Students at the university of North London, which I represent, are all hard up and most of them are being forced into one sort of part-time work or another just to survive. That is not a successful society but a desperately unhappy one.
  The Secretary of State started off by blaming such people before moving on to blame single parents. He blames them all the time. The hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) excelled himself when he told me that single parents were the sole cause of Britain's economic decline relative to Japan. When Conservative Members mount Goebbels-like attacks on single parents, they do not realise the damage that it does to those people and to their self-esteem. They do not know about the stigmatisation that happens the next day in school playgrounds. It seems that every year a new enemy has to be uncovered.
  The Government moved on to asylum seekers—people who uproot themselves to flee to another country because they are terrified. When they arrive in Britain, they are scapegoated for all our economic ills by the Secretary of State. It is the same Goebbels-like attack.
  The hypocrisy of Conservative Members is unbelievable. Like me, they have probably all had letters from British people, residents or nationals who have earned their pensions by working in this country and gone to live abroad. They may have gone back to the Caribbean or to live in Australia or Spain. That is all perfectly legal and legitimate. Hon. Members had the opportunity to restore those people's rights to a full pension at the same rate as was paid in this country. What happened to all the brave Members who signed the early-day motion and wrote to pensioner organisations all over the world that they were with them and recognised all that they had done in two world wars? Those hon. Members did not come here to vote for what they had promised to support—promises that they had no doubt released to their local papers. The hypocrisy is breathtaking.
  The Secretary of State moved on to a new enemy a year or two ago. He went for Italian students, who he claimed were coming to Britain to claim benefits falsely. Perhaps hon. Members remember the speech. It was another Goebbels-type speech made at the annual Nuremberg rally—"Let's have a go at these benefit tourists."
  238
  Who has that hit? It has hit people who for various reasons have worked abroad for more than two years. It has hit people who have gone back to family connections in the Caribbean. It has hurt ordinary people born in this country who have gone to work abroad for a short time. The result is misery.
  People come to my advice surgery in desperation and tears because they come back to this country and cannot get a job or benefit. They are being evicted from their houses because they cannot get housing benefit—because they cannot get income support in the first place. The Secretary of State should read the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux report on the subject. I know that a copy has been sent to him.
  The biggest con is the treatment of pensioners. The Government are keen to say that pensioners' income has gone up by 33 per cent. since the Tory Government came into office, that every pensioner is so much better off. The real increase in the state pension is 40p since 1979, as the Secretary of State told me in an answer not long ago. The Government broke the link between pensions and earnings in 1980 to reduce taxation and short-change pensioners. That is an absolute scandal. Every pensioner has been robbed of more than £20 a week by that one decision, which Geoffrey Howe claimed as his greatest political achievement. Personally, I thought that his only political achievement was when he accused the then Prime Minister of sending him in to bat with a bat she had broken in half before he set out—that was one of the high points of my parliamentary life.
  The Government, and others in western Europe, perpetually promote the idea that the only way forward for economic growth is to reduce taxation and costs. We hear the same right-wing nonsense from the Adam Smith Institute and from other institutes all over Europe. They promote the destruction of the post-war consensus that society as a whole has a responsibility to remove people from poverty and to guarantee people reasonable sustenance after they have passed retirement age or if they fall desperately ill or suffer some comparable misfortune. That is all under threat from the philosophies that those institutes promote.
  Those ideas are promoted on the basis that we have to live in a global economy and compete with low-wage economies elsewhere. The Government promote the free market economy and promote—indeed, invest in—slave labour economies and companies and multinational corporations which use them and then say that we must cut costs in western Europe to compete. They supported the general agreement on tariffs and trade, which was part of the process of creating a global free market economy. That is what the British people are being offered.
  Mr. Bernard Jenkin: They keep voting for us.
  Mr. Corbyn: There is no evidence of that on the doorsteps at the moment. If people are so keen to re-elect the Government, I assume that the Prime Minister will leave on a high point, call an early general election and be returned with a resounding majority. If that is the case, he is slow to seize the moment.
  Some awful changes are proposed in the benefit arrangements. The Secretary of State's philosophy is wholly appalling. To return to the subject of pensions,

  239
  I mentioned that the link with earnings had been broken in 1980 and that pensioners' proportion of average earnings is below 14 per cent. and falling rapidly.
  Specifically to promote private pensions, the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) and the Prime Minister—I remember this well because I served on the relevant Standing Committee—reduced the value of the state earnings-related pension scheme by up to half. It was all done to destroy SERPS and promote the private pensions industry.
  Belatedly, the Government admit, as my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) pointed out, that up to 25 per cent. of the cost of private pension schemes goes in administration and they have little long-term security. The Government have no plans to deal with the consequences of collapsing private pension schemes. They say that the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development has given Britain a clean bill of health because of all the money that we have in private pension schemes. Where is all the money invested? Has it gone into housing or socially useful projects? Or has it been invested in speculation, often overseas?
  Secondly, is not forcing people into private pension schemes, in effect, a privatisation of taxation? People are forced to spend money on private pension schemes with all the costs that go with them when a properly funded state scheme and a proper increase in the state pension would do much to eliminate poverty among retired people.
  The poorest people in the country are often women over 75. Tragically, they are often widows living in desperate poverty. The Government have no plans to do anything to help them. Likewise, the Government have no plans to assist people who seldom have the opportunity to work throughout their working lives.
  What about the equalisation of pension ages? The Government are short-changing all the women who thought that they could retire at 60 and who are now told that they have to retire at 65. Surely to God, at the end of the 20th century, we should be able to look forward to a retirement age of 60 for both women and men, rather than forcing people to go on longer.
  Many other issues need to be dealt with, but I shall mention only a couple. The Government have a new obsession with single parents and their problems but do little to help them to get work. They make no improvement in child care facilities and are trying to take away the small single parent benefit that is paid. They ignore the experience of nearby countries. There was no need to go to Australia or Singapore to learn how to deal with the problem. If they went to the Netherlands, they would find considerable Government investment in local authority-generated job creation specifically to ensure that single parents are able to get work because it is associated with good-quality, reliable child care facilities.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Poplar (Ms Gordon) mentioned the Child Support Agency and the way in which the Government planned to penalise absent parents or non-custodial parents on income support. I fail to see what the Child Support Agency is achieving, apart from spreading the misery between parents. So far as I can gather, none of the money that it has collected has assisted any children. A massive bureaucracy has been created and very few people have benefited from it.
  240
  Many hon. Members mentioned housing benefit and the fraud that is associated with it. I was amazed by the remarks of the hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Hawkins) on that subject. I did not realise that the Tory Government had allowed such dreadful things to happen for so long. Why does the hon. Gentleman believe that housing benefit is so expensive? Why is it open to such abuses and fraud? As the Government have deregulated rents and refuse to register houses in multiple occupation but just automatically pay housing benefit at whatever level of rent landlords request, housing benefit is clearly on a permanent accelerator. Housing benefit is very expensive and it is essentially a subsidy for landlords rather than a benefit to tenants.
  The Social Security Select Committee inquiry into housing benefit has found that massive fraud is occurring. It is being perpetrated largely by landlords because local authorities are underfunded in their administration of housing benefit. The London local authorities spend up to £300 million administering housing benefit and local authorities are not paid the full value of the benefits that they have to pay out. There is a positive disincentive to pay out housing benefit when it is needed and there is no incentive to administer it properly.
  Mr. David Winnick: Rachman should be living now.
  Mr. Corbyn: It would be much easier for Rachman if he were alive today because he could simply write to the local authority and claim the money—he would not need to use dogs and the other horrific methods that he employed. The Government should be realistic about housing benefit. Perhaps they should consider re-regulating rents so that private sector rents do not continue to go through the roof. In most parts of London, £100 per week would hardly pay for a bedsit and people are paying more than £150 per week for a flat. That is one of the consequences of a housing benefit strategy designed to subsidise landlords whom Government policies have freed from any controls.
  One could discuss many issues in the debate, but I shall conclude on one important point. Those of us who grew up secure in the knowledge that the welfare state provided guarantees against unemployment and sickness and guaranteed some degree of dignity in retirement are seeing those guarantees being taken away. Future generations will not thank us for allowing all the gains of post-war consensus to be sacrificed by the Government on the altar of a free market economy.
  I believe in the principle of a state-run welfare system. Where the welfare state has operated elsewhere—for example, in Sweden, and in most other parts of western Europe—people enjoy greater security, higher living standards and higher levels of achievement. In this country the living standards of the poor are continually being reduced and too many of our children are under-achieving in under-funded schools because the Government believe that public spending is a dirty word.
  I believe that the only way to begin to eliminate poverty is to introduce a national minimum wage and a benefits system which provides real opportunities. The free market offers only the slavery of the competitive economy and the misery of poverty for the many who fail to achieve within it. Conservative Members may feel cocky at

  241
  present because they have been in office for a long time, but they should recognise that many people do not accept the amoral society that the Government are attempting to create. They must recognise that all over the world the tide is turning rapidly against the principles of the free market economy in favour of a society that cares for everyone—irrespective of his or her birthright—and ensures that all are able to live a decent life. That is something that the Tories simply cannot recognise.
  8.3 pm
  Mr. Nigel Evans: I am grateful that I have caught your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in this important debate about uprating the orders. I believe that those who receive Department of Social Security benefits are not spongers or wasters—the vast majority of recipients are in genuine need. Many people find that situation extremely stressful and would prefer to have a job rather than rely on benefit. However, I also believe that we should take fraud very seriously. It is corrosive and we should not turn a blind eye to it.
  I enjoyed listening to the contribution from the jurassic hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn). He is perhaps not new Labour, but he is certainly real Labour—so much so that the Labour spin doctor, the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson), who was standing to one side, could not remain in the Chamber for a second longer. No doubt he has gone to cry into his avocado dip. The contribution from the hon. Member for Islington, North was vintage old Labour—it is the sort of politics that we could expect if the nightmare became reality and the Labour party formed the next Government.
  The hon. Gentleman banged on time and again about the difference between those who have no money and those who have it. He and his party will never learn that one cannot make the poor rich by making the rich poor. It is the politics of envy and we hear it time and again whenever Labour Members open their mouths. The hon. Gentleman said that the Conservatives need a new enemy every year, but the Labour party sticks with its old enemy: those who happen to have some money. The Labour party cannot wait for an opportunity to take that money away.
  Mr. Jenkin: I agree with a great deal of what my hon. Friend has said about the speech by the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn). Did my hon. Friend notice that, at one or two points during the hon. Gentleman's speech, the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) nodded his head? That suggests that the hon. Member for Islington, North has more in common with his Front-Bench colleague than the spin doctor from Hartlepool would have us believe.
  Mr. Evans: I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for pointing that out. While we hear the silence of the lambs on the Front Bench when we ask any questions, I have no doubt that many Labour Members are in agreement. During the summer, the hon. Member for Islington, North said that more than 100 Labour Members do not agree with the leadership style of the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair). A growing number of Labour Members simply do not agree with his rhetoric—I refer only to his rhetoric because I believe that his policies are completely different again.
  242
  We were treated to some sheer humbug from the hon. Member for Islington, North this evening. He talked about caring for pensioners, but the Labour party would not know how to care for pensioners. He referred to the fact that pensions are no longer linked to earnings, but to inflation. If pensions had been linked to inflation under the last Labour Government, pensioners' savings would not have been savaged when inflation reached 27 per cent. That was the cruellest tax of all: it indiscriminately whittled away the money that people had saved for their old age. They could not go out and find jobs.
  Under the last Labour Government, people's savings were quickly whittled away over five years and their lifestyles and livelihoods were severely damaged. I do not think that the elderly will quickly forget or forgive the Labour party for the way in which they were treated by the last Labour Government.
  Mr. Jenkin: The last Labour Government committed the great sin of not only allowing inflation to eat into pensioners' savings, but changing the method of uprating so that pensions increased very little during a time of very high inflation. The last Labour Government cut the real value of pensions—that should never be forgotten.
  Mr. Evans: I am sure that that will not be forgotten. I can at least be charitable to the Labour party and say that it did not single out pensioners for the rough treatment—everyone received rough treatment when the Labour party was last in government. Those who were in work suffered when inflation was at 27 per cent.—for example, those who worked in the national health service had their take-home pay cut in real terms.
  The hon. Member for Islington, North talked about single, elderly ladies—for whom he has found some new compassion. However, when the old rating system was in place, single, elderly ladies—who had lost their husbands, who were living alone in their large houses and who wished to stay there because all their memories were there—had their rates shoot up through the roof. No regard was paid to them whatsoever, and many of them had to move out of their homes simply because they could not afford to stay.
  We have heard from the hon. Member for Islington, North the old Labour rhetoric of tax and spend—that is exactly what he was advocating today. I am sure that the shadow spokesman, the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith), will have an opportunity to come to the Dispatch Box to answer some points about the benefit system generally, about how much more money a future Labour Government would commit to the social security budget and about where they would get that money from.
  We must continue our battle against fraud—all hon. Members would want to see it combated and whittled away. The Government are taking action against fraud, and I hope that they receive support from all hon. Members. We have heard about the £100 million that was invested last year to combat fraud, which saved £400 million. However, it has been estimated that as much as £1,000 million could be fraudulently taken away from the £90 billion budget for social security.
  People visit our surgeries and tell us stories about people whom they know, who are either working and are claiming, or who are fit and well and are receiving support

  243
  for invalidity. I urge people to give such information to the Department of Social Security so that it can be properly investigated. There is nothing wrong with that—it is not snitching; it is ensuring that the taxpayers' money is effectively spent and targeted at those who really need it. If the money is going to people who do not need it, less money is available for everyone else.
  I welcome the fact that visits to the homes of benefit claimants are being stepped up—that has already saved £70 million. Approximately one year ago, I visited my local social security office in Preston, and we discussed a range of issues relating to benefit claimants. One thing that I had paid little attention to in the past was the fact that a lot of people who work for the Benefits Agency have to make home visits, particularly when someone has reported that his cheque has gone missing or when someone has claimed benefit for the first time—such matters must be investigated properly.
  We do not appreciate the danger into which such work puts some who work for the Department of Social Security. I ask the Minister to pay tribute to each and every member of the staff of the Department for the work that they do—some of them face violence on a daily basis, and some of them live in fear. They do a tremendous job and they are some of the unsung heroes of those who are cracking down on fraud. They deserve credit for the work that they are doing.
  Mrs. Teresa Gorman: Is my hon. Friend aware that in the days when the friendly societies administered most of the welfare in this country—they were used by the state until 1945 to deal with benefits that the state administered—the incidence of fraud was practically zero? We cut out the moral hazard of people cheating the system because the members of each society were self-monitoring it, and those people who were likely to be defrauding the system would be dealt with through the society. There was practically no fraud at all.
  Mr. Evans: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for pointing that out. I do not think that we will ever get back to a position where everyone is honest—we have to recognise that there is a dishonest element in society. We have to do as much as we can to detect fraud and stamp it out where possible. In a moment, I shall mention areas in which we are doing that. The people—many of them are women—who have to take measures against those who are trying to defraud the system deserve credit for the work that they do. Like my hon. Friend, they are very brave and tough people.
  We have heard a lot about asylum seekers. Soon after I was elected, I served on the Committee that examined the Asylum and Immigration Bill. The number of people who were coming into this country, seeking asylum and applying for benefit was growing at such a massive rate that, if the Government had not taken action, the bill would have been absolutely astronomic. I applaud the measures that were taken in trying to crack down on fraud by those who were coming in to seek benefit in the first instance.
  A number of people are quite obviously not genuine asylum seekers—they come here as economic refugees because they think that life and conditions in this country
  244
  are better than they are at home; I could imagine that to be so for a number of reasons. We have to be fair to the genuine asylum seekers; we must ensure that they are treated quickly so that they know where they stand and so that they get the benefits to help them live in this country.
  Ms Lynne: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that there are bogus asylum seekers, and no one would like to encourage them. However, does he agree with me that genuine asylum seekers will be caught in this net because a lot of them apply in-country, not when they arrive at the port of entry? As the hon. Gentleman was on the Committee, he must own up and accept that genuine asylum seekers will be disadvantaged as well.
  Mr. Evans: I do not accept the hon. Lady's contention—in fact, the vast majority of those who go on to appeal are not successful.
  Ms Lynne: What is the figure?
  Mr. Evans: It is 4 per cent. People who come into this country and seek asylum are not always from the traditional countries that one might expect; often, they have decided to come here to better their economic livelihoods. If they are genuine asylum seekers, they must go through the proper procedures. They must not come to this country, spend a couple of months here and then decide—when it is almost time to go home—to seek asylum. I welcome the measures that have been taken.
  I welcome the introduction and the utilisation of new technology in the crackdown on fraud, wherever it exists. We have already heard that next year the Benefits Agency expects to award a contract for the automation of services at post office counters. We all remember the debate about the post offices that has raged in the House for a number of years. I welcome the fact that those who wish to have their pensions paid at post offices will still be able to do so.
  I recently spoke to one of my local postmasters—they are the front-line staff as well. A lot of the postmasters and mistresses know the people who come to their counters and they know whether they are who they say they are. Over a year ago, one of the postmasters at the Barracks post office in Fulwood was able to help detect somebody who was trying fraudulently to cash a giro cheque. That is the sort of help that we get from post offices. I again applaud the work of our postmasters and mistresses who operate on a daily basis, who help those who genuinely need the money and who help to detect fraud. They also need some help.
  There is much debate about ID cards. It cannot be that I mix with only a certain type of person; it seems to me that the vast majority of people would welcome the introduction of an ID card containing a photograph and a laser-etched signature. Time and again, when I speak to groups of people—not just party political groups—they agree that ID cards could help to crack down on crime, including fraud.
  When such cards have been utilised by banks and building societies, they have proved to be tremendously successful in reducing credit card and cheque guarantee card fraud. Why is the system not extended generally? I cannot understand why all banks and building societies do not introduce cards with photographs and laser-etched

  245
  signatures. Why is the system not adopted generally for people who access benefits, so that they can prove who they are? It would assist them as much as anyone else.
  We all have ID cards for our own security to get access to the Palace, as do our researchers. We do not mind carrying ID cards. Why cannot we extend the scheme generally so that others can benefit from it? I hope that my hon. Friend will say something about the utilisation of new technology, including ID cards, to help crack down on benefit fraud.
  I was delighted by the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Hawkins). My hon. Friends the Members for Blackpool, North (Mr. Elletson) and for Scarborough (Mr. Sykes) have been working extremely hard to address the benefit fraud in the DSS hostels that are damaging tourism in their constituencies. I hope that, either in the Social Security Committee or at a later stage, the Government will introduce measures that will help to crack down on such fraud.
  Almost in conclusion, I welcome the incentives that have been introduced for those entering employment. People who have been out of work for two years or more are now being encouraged to take employment by the one-year national insurance holiday that starts in April. The longer people are unemployed, the harder it is for them to return to work. I welcome that incentive.
  I also hope that we can do more to counter agism. After people have reached a certain age—despite the aging population, that age is getting lower—they feel that they are on the scrap heap and that employers do not want them. What a wonderful resource we have out there in people over the age of 40. They can contribute a great deal, and I hope that the Department for Education and Employment will introduce measures to help change our culture so that those people can find work.
  Finally, we have to find ways of reducing the amount of money spent on social security generally. In any event, we want fewer people claiming benefits. We must ensure that Britain's enterprise economy continues. It has been developing for the past 16 years and it is still growing apace. We must maintain low inflation as it helps elderly people and those on benefits and provides security for everyone. We must not introduce the social chapter and the minimum wage in Britain. They would be disincentives to firms employing more people because social on-costs would be higher.
  The Opposition have to answer certain questions, and we shall be listening carefully. Their carping is pointless. We want to know how much extra money they would spend and from where they would get it.
  8.24 pm
  Mr. Harry Cohen: First, in relation to fraud, which we all agree must be tackled and which no one condones, I wonder whether an individual who is accused of fraud can now ask for a Scott-like inquiry. Perhaps he could use the defence that he designedly made off with the money without deliberately intending to deceive. Perhaps such an individual should have the chance to pressure the judge, get an advance copy of the case against him and have it rewritten. Perhaps that is a cynical way to start, but if deception by those at the lower end of the scale is to be punished, the same punishment should apply to Ministers—but that is an argument for another day.
  246
  The Government have a poor record on social security. The number of people dependent on benefit has doubled from one in 12 of the population in 1979 to one in six. Despite the cuts in benefit, the benefits bill has increased by £30 billion since 1979. There has also been a substantial increase in inequality. According to the Joseph Rowntree Foundation report, the income of the richest tenth of the population has risen by more than 60 per cent. while the income of the poorest tenth has fallen by 17 per cent. The number of children living in poverty has trebled from one child in 12 in 1979 to one child in four today. That is a real scandal for the Government. At the next general election, they should be called to account for forcing so many children into poverty.
  The cost of benefits to top up low pay has grown to £2.4 billion a year and mass unemployment now costs the Exchequer £20 billion a year.
  I should like to draw attention to the topping up of low pay. We are in danger of getting into the same situation as America, where wages are not always enough and families have to rely on the state. That is a very bad path to follow, but it is the one we are going down as the Government support employers who pay low wages. Low wages are a chronic burden for many of my constituents. They are also a burden on taxpayers who have to pay for them. It costs every taxpayer some £750 a year to top up the wages of people in work. That is a scandal.
  Mrs. Gorman: I do not for a moment doubt the hon. Gentleman's sincerity, but I want to ask him two questions. Is not a low wage better than no wage? Is not it true that some occupations simply cannot produce enough profit to pay high wages? The hon. Gentleman appears to be decrying the Government's policy—which is to be commended—to top up low wages with income support.
  Mr. Cohen: In my opinion, a low wage is not good enough. That is why I support a national minimum wage. The real answer to the hon. Lady's question is that many people do not agree that a low wage is better than no wage at all so they stay on benefit because there is absolutely no advantage in getting a job. That is the poverty trap. It is no good taking the Conservative option of cutting their benefits altogether. That throws more families into poverty and punishes their children. That is not just my opinion, but the opinion of people who live in the real world who have to balance their budgets.
  We must have a proper level for wages. More than 1 million people now earn less than £2.50 an hour. It is hard to imagine how they can support themselves and their families on that. Two thirds of that number are women. Many youngsters are exploited, which gives them a bad start in life. Often, they have to do menial work. Although that is only to be expected because they are just starting work, it is demoralising to get poverty pay. That also makes it difficult to encourage young people into the world of work.
  Poverty pay is also damaging to the middle-aged—the 40 and 50-year-olds who still want to work—because increasingly they are told that if they want to work they must accept the same low wage as a young person would accept. If they do not, they are forced out of the labour market and their skills are wasted. Low wages are a burden and that is reflected in the business before us.

  247
  A high proportion of people in the dole queue are long-term unemployed and, when they look for work—many of them are still trying, despite being demoralised—they are told that, because they have been out of work for a long time and have nothing worth while on their curriculum vitae, they must be bad workers, so they are not taken on. That is what employers tell them. If the long-term unemployed take work, they are taxed and the marginal rate comes into play. It is hardly worth their while—because they lose their benefits—especially if they move to a low-wage job.
  I apologise in advance to hon. Members, but I want to tell a personal story. My foster son, Mark, is a lovely lad and a good father to his children. He is a young man, just 21, and has a second family. He is caught in the poverty trap. He is on benefit, but if he got a job to support his second family he would be caught by the child support rules. I am not disputing that principle, but the poverty trap is so great that I cannot see him being able to get a job that pays enough to make it worth his while after loss of benefits. That is my personal experience; many other families have the same problem. I ask the Minister to address that point and tell me whether anything in the upratings will make it possible for people such as Mark—there are many of them—to get a job. The Child Support Agency's actions lead to just one of the poverty traps that keep people out of work when they want to get a job.
  A programme of welfare into work is crucial, and it is the policy of the Labour party. The environmental task force support for small businesses—to help them to take on young people at a wage which is at least the benefit level plus £20 a week—will help those who are trying to break out of the poverty trap that affects so many young people.
  It is terrific that the Labour party has proposed a national minimum wage that will tackle the problem of low pay. That will be an issue at the general election. The Government can huff and puff about the effect of a minimum wage on unemployment, but if it is set at sensible level it will have no effect on unemployment whatever. On the contrary, it will lift many families out of poverty. That is crucial.
  Mr. Nigel Evans: The hon. Gentleman's comrade, the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), said that there would be a shake-out if the minimum wage were introduced. How many jobs is he prepared to lose to introduce a minimum wage?
  Mr. Cohen: The shake-out will be of people who are unemployed back into work. That is what will happen.
  Mr. Jenkin: Come on, Harry.
  Mr. Cohen: Yes, it will. The discussion of that point will continue in the build-up to the election, but the arguments in favour of a national minimum wage are overwhelming.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will return to that
  248
  argument on another occasion; I am not quite sure that it is relevant to the motions on social security before the House this evening.
  Mr. Cohen: I was making the point that, if people were paid a decent wage, they would not be dependent on social security. I am sorry that I did not make that clear.
  Mr. Alan Simpson: Does my hon. Friend accept that many employers are now increasingly concerned about their obligation to pay tax to pay for the benefit system? The good employer, who pays a decent wage, also subsidises the awful employer, who pays a lousy wage. In that sense, disproportionate, unfair and unequal burdens are placed on the best employers to support a social wage that many lousy employers do not pay.
  Mr. Cohen: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. The Government's low-wage approach subsidises the worst employers. We must change that approach. I noted your earlier comments, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I shall move on.
  The Government broke the link, which existed before 1979, that ensured that pensions would rise in line with earnings or prices, whichever went up the most. As a result, a single pensioner has lost more than £20.30 a week and a married couple have lost more than £32.70 a week. The Government have robbed pensioners of £10 billion a year by breaking that link.
  I received a letter, dated 16 January, from Age Concern, which has recently produced a report called "Short Change"—although £10 billion a year is not short change. The letter states:
  "The report … shows that half of pensioner households depend on pension and benefits for at least 75 per cent. of their income and that two thirds of pensioners have incomes so low they pay no income tax. Though the number of pensioners who receive an occupational pension has increased, only 30 per cent. of all single pensioners receive more than £20 per week from them. A low state pension, inadequate benefits and the 'poverty trap' all conspire to create increasing financial hardship among many older people…Age Concern welcomes the Government's belief that the state pension is 'the cornerstone of retirement', but we believe that it should be raised to 33 per cent. of average earnings for single pensioners and 50 per cent. for a couple…We also want to see more encouragement of take up of benefits. About one third of eligible pensioners did not claim income support to which they are entitled
  On that point, the amount of unclaimed benefit is still more than the amount lost through fraud. The Government should be working to ensure that those who are entitled to benefits get them.
  Just as in society as a whole, the gap between the poorest and richest pensioners is growing. The gap between the pensions of those who are fully reliant on a state pension and those who have occupational pensions is getting wider. The Government have relied on the occupational element and claimed that more people will have private pensions. That will happen over time, but many people will have gaps in their employment. Some people might have seven or eight gaps in their working lives, and in those gaps their pension contributions will suffer.

  249
  The Government's reliance on private pensions to top up pensions to a decent level overall is misguided. That is shown in the statistics that are set out in this month's Labour Research, which I bring to the attention of the House. It states:
  "An opinion survey carried out by the European Commission in 1992 found that 66 per cent. of all adults in the UK thought that the main problem facing older people in the UK was 'not having enough to live on/financial difficulties'."
  That percentage
  "was well above the average for the whole of the European Union—48 per cent."
  The article continues by pointing out that
  "if you depend on the state, or on a minimal personal pension, you will be badly off in the UK, and certainly worse off than in other European countries…UK pensioners who depend entirely on the compulsory element of the pension system…are the worst off in Europe when comparing their pension with previous earnings".
  Another interesting passage tells us that UK workers benefited from occupational pension schemes. That is where the gap with the Europeans begins to close, but even with an occupational pension scheme UK pensioners receive 77 per cent. of their previous net earnings compared with the EU average of 88 per cent., which includes 92 per cent. in Germany, 87 per cent. in France and 90 per cent. in Italy.
  In other words, those who rely on the basic state pension are extremely badly off. Even with the occupational element, pensioners in the UK are much worse off than their counterparts in the rest of Europe. That is especially true of women, who have often had a working life disrupted.
  Figures from the Department of Social Security show that, in 1993, only 57 per cent. of single pensioners and 72 per cent. of pensioner couples received occupational pensions. Men are more likely to have one than women. Those who worked for large employers are much more likely to be covered than those who were employed by smaller concerns.
  There is an alarming growth of inequality among pensioners. In 1979, the poorest 20 per cent. of pensioners had net incomes of about a third of those of the wealthiest 20 per cent. By 1990, the pensions of the poorest had fallen to only a quarter of the richest. If inequality is growing alarmingly, the Government's case that it can be rectified by relying on private pensions to fill the gap is not proven. Growing unemployment drives a hole through that argument. Unless we increase the basic state pension, many of our pensioners will be condemned to live many years in poverty.
  The Government should think again, as should the House, about pension provision. We should increase the basic state pension to a reasonable level to ensure that people can live on it.
  8.42 pm
  Mr. Bernard Jenkin: As always, I enjoyed listening to the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen). Before he spoke, I enjoyed listening to the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn), who entertained us much with his approach. Perhaps the voice missing from the Opposition Benches—I regret that I did not hear the opening speeches, but I was attending to other matters as a member of the Committee that is considering
  250
  the Finance Bill—is that of the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field). There is a difference in emphasis between the approach adopted by those who occupy the Opposition Front Bench and that of the hon. Member for Birkenhead.
  With your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall explore what the Select Committee on Social Security has been working on: containing social security costs and the development of a genuine social security system that can bring genuine social security, in its fullest sense, to everyone. I would appreciate the opportunity to do so.
  Before leaving the remarks of the hon. Member for Leyton, however, I take up his remarks about comparative pensions across the European Union. There is a little phrase in the tail of his comparisons, which rather exposes them for what they are. He was talking about percentages of average earnings, and the key feature of what we have achieved is that the relatively high percentage of average earnings that most pensioners in the United Kingdom can achieve is based on saved income that is fully financed. That is especially the feature of second and third-tier pensions.
  In the EU, however, although even higher percentages of average earnings are paid, they are funded by a completely unsustainable financial system. One of the reasons why economic and monetary union in Europe is becoming such an unstable prospect is that the fundamental gearing of such an economy is so high that it is unlikely that it will be able to fund the promises that have been made.
  The hon. Member for Islington, North and other Opposition Members seemed to be describing a failed welfare system. They appeared to be describing a system that was very much the creation of the Labour party. In fact, it is a system that has been expanded beyond anyone's dreams. We are spending a huge amount of national income on the welfare state. Yet according to the words of the hon. Member for Islington, North, we have seen a catastrophic failure. The traditional Labour party's great failure of imagination is that the greater the failure, in its eyes, that the welfare state becomes, the more money it insists, the issue should be spent upon it, and then the worse the problem becomes.
  The hon. Member for Islington, North gave a great accolade to Sweden and its welfare state, which is what the hon. Gentleman wishes to see in the United Kingdom. His opinions underline the failure of that line of argument. Sweden having joined the European Union, the issue is not whether it will qualify for monetary union, but whether its currency will survive. If a Government are taxing well over 50, 60 or 70 per cent. of the national income and recycling or redistributing much of it through a welfare system, they destroy the wealth-creating process. There are examples throughout the world. The higher welfare state costs rise, the lower is the propensity to grow and the more social problems are created.
  The great truth that right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House must embrace, if we are to contain welfare costs and create a welfare system that serves the people instead of imprisoning them in the poverty traps described by the hon. Member for Leyton, is to accept as a first principle that there are limits to the taxation that people are prepared to bear. As it becomes increasingly evident that the taxation and recirculation of wealth by the state tends to be a vain exercise that destroys all the

  251
  natural incentives that should exist in a market economy, it becomes clear that the intolerance of taxation becomes stronger and stronger.
  If evidence were ever required of what I have just described, it is the Government's unpopularity. The Government were determined to maintain public services and, especially, the growth of the welfare state. At the same time it was felt necessary to maintain humanity and decency in our society. It may be argued, however, that those qualities have not been maintained. To maintain the expenditure of the welfare state, we froze the indexation of personal tax allowances. We removed other income tax allowances and increased the burden of personal taxation. We even added to the value added tax system items that were not included before.
  If that action had been a success, we would be popular, but increasing taxation to maintain high spending has proved extremely unpopular. It may still be necessary and worth while, but the British people do not wish to tolerate it in the long term, and they are delighted that we are returning to a trend of falling taxation. The Government are to be commended for getting Government finances back on track.
  Mrs. Gorman: Is my hon. Friend aware that the late Lord Joseph, who served as Secretary of State for Social Services in the Tory Government before the little Labour interlude and our taking office in 1979, was amazed to find what an enormous proportion of welfare spending went towards paying the salaries of the middle classes who ran the system, which did not relieve poverty at all?
  Mr. Jenkin: There is a great deal in what my hon. Friend says. The system is designed and operated by middle-class people. It provides salaries for middle-class people, who return home in the evening to the leafy suburbs, their two cars and their two kids. It does nothing but maintain an increasing underclass in a state of subservience, ensnared by the poverty traps to which the hon. Member for Leyton referred.
  The success of the Government, first and foremost, has been to contain the growth of social security expenditure. My first substantial work on the Select Committee on Social Security was our report on the growth of social security. In the cross-party atmosphere of a Select Committee, it was quite remarkable how members of all parties subscribed to the premise that the endless growth of social security at a faster rate than the growth of the nation's economy was unsustainable. Opposition Members have shown this evening that they still do not accept that basic premise.
  The Opposition's response to every measure that the Government have taken to contain the growth in social security—the introduction of incapacity benefit, reforms of the state earnings-related pension scheme and indexation of pensions—has been to fail responsibly to confront the issue that has confronted every party in government: that the state has made promises that simply cannot be honoured indefinitely, and it is honest and responsible to contain those costs.
  The most blatant example is, perhaps, the most recent—asylum seekers. I was as concerned as anybody when I heard that we were cutting another aspect of
  252
  growing social security, so I took the trouble to visit Stansted airport, which is not in my constituency, but is nearby. I did so because of an immigration case in which I had been involved at that airport. It was an open-and-shut case of abuse of our immigration system, and the official at the other end of the telephone, whom I had called during my surgery, explained to me chapter and verse why that was so. He said, "Don't worry. You needn't feel responsible for sending him out of the country, because he's bound to claim asylum." That is precisely what he did and he immediately became eligible for the benefit payments of which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is trying to deprive bogus asylum seekers. By enacting that measure, we shall reduce excessive social security expenditure of about £200 million a year to a much lower sum. In doing so, we are merely putting asylum seekers on the same footing as other benefit claimants.
  Mr. Chris Smith: The hon. Gentleman mentions a figure of £200 million. How much will local authorities now have to spend to pick up the pieces of the Government's decision?
  Mr. Jenkin: The important message that will be sent to the increasing community of people who decide to come to this country to live off the asylum application and benefit system is that they should not be in this country. The appeals system has become so choked and overloaded, with so many delays, that when I visited Stansted, the immigration service told me that it knew of people who had applied for asylum, had been turned down, were on appeal but had returned to their country of origin before returning to Britain to pursue their claim for asylum. The front-line official to whom I spoke told me—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman initially related his remarks to benefits, but he is now going way beyond that; we have been to Stansted three times in the past 60 seconds. Perhaps we could return to the Chamber.
  Mr. Jenkin: I fly back instantly, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  My visit to Stansted airport demonstrated that the vast majority of asylum applications are bogus. It is absolutely right that we should remove the temptation for people to abuse the asylum application system, by removing the eligibility for benefits for those on appeal.
  The problem with which we are confronted in the debate is the failure of state welfare, the ever-rising bill, the ever-rising expense and the increasing social problems. If we installed effective anti-fraud systems in the Department of Social Security and in local authorities that administer housing benefit, they would do a great deal to pay for themselves simply by being effective. I look forward to persuading my colleagues on the Select Committee that, ultimately, we should have a single on-line benefit system, whereby someone who applies for a benefit is already on the system and has only one national insurance number instead of the several that he seems to acquire at the moment. At the touch of a button, an official anywhere in the country could discover his claims history. Duplication and mismatching and the need for complicated and expensive data matching could be removed by a proper on-line database.

  253
  The real failure of the system, however, lies in the personal fraud that it encourages, and the effect of extensive means-testing on society. The flip side of targeting—ensuring that the money reaches the people who really deserve it—is our creation of so many perverse incentives that it is difficult for people to get out of the system once they are in it.
  I do not think that any hon. Member could underestimate the corrosive effect on individuals and families who find themselves trapped in that system. It must be the duty of every party in the House to try to find ways of delivering welfare to those who need it without creating the painful conflicts of interest that lead claimants—for the sake of the very survival of their families—to be less than scrupulously honest about their circumstances, and about what they are doing to try to improve their families' living standards.
  We should remind ourselves that Beveridge's original intention was to provide a system that would encourage people to look to their personal resources and talents, and to make an effort to work. The aim was not to discourage that. We need a much more savings-based welfare system—a system that will create personalised savings, and on which people can depend in the future.
  9 pm
  Mr. Alan Simpson: I congratulate my hon. Friends the Members for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) and for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) on their speeches. I suspect that one thing we have in common is that we are all children of the welfare state—but the welfare state with which I grew up is not the welfare state with which I am presented today. It is in that context that I welcome the fundamental review being undertaken by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith), the shadow Secretary of State. I hope that my hon. Friend will develop at least two of the points raised by the hon. Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin). I shall deal first with the point with which I disagreed. I shall then turn to the one with which I agreed.
  The hon. Member for Colchester, North was right to point out that, when Beveridge wrote about the welfare state, he assumed the existence of a safety net that was not a replacement for employment but an adjunct to full employment. That safety net, however, was designed to ease the transition from benefits to work. Today, the welfare state has been distorted. For many, it has become a permanent alternative to employment.
  It is wrong to suggest that the concept of the welfare state is necessarily an undermining and destructive influence on the wealth-creating capacity of a nation. It is clear from the Government's economic record that nothing has destroyed our manufacturing base as much as their economic policies: Hitler's six years of sustained attack and bombardment failed to do the same damage to Britain's manufacturing and wealth-creating base.
  The sad double whammy is that the Government have also changed a welfare state based on the presumption of universality of entitlement into one obsessed with means-testing. That obsession is a degrading and demeaning aspect of the welfare state with which the country is now saddled.
  I still live in the middle of an inner-city estate which, I feel, carries many of the burdens of the Government's approach, and where people must bear the heaviest
  254
  marginal tax rates in the land. Those who seek to escape the benefits trap find that the marginal rate that they must pay on every £1 they earn is at least 97p. That is the combination of the payment of basic rate tax and the clawback of benefits—the loss of housing benefit and income support.
  For some, the trap is even worse. If those who are entitled to passported benefits such as free school meals or school bus passes lose that entitlement, they may lose up to £1.17 for every £1 that they earn. That will hardly entice people to move from dependency on benefits to work. It is a huge millstone, which has turned the poverty trap into a poverty pit. We are told, however, that the only way out of this is more means-testing. That is the essence of all the regulatory changes that the Government have introduced. They aim to tighten the network of means-tested benefits and to reduce the availability of universal entitlements.
  I hope that, in its fundamental review, the Labour party will take on board a number of different considerations. The first is in relation to pensions. We are told that the number of pensioners is growing and that the restoration both of the state pension's value—linking it to increases in earnings or prices, whichever is the greater—and of the state earnings-related pension scheme is unaffordable and unsustainable. If one projects the Government Actuary's figures last year for the next 50 years, one finds that the cost of the restoration of the basic pension would amount to only 0.4 per cent. of gross domestic product. The restoration of SERPS over that period would amount to a further 0.8 per cent. of GDP. The total cost over the whole period would amount to less than the cost of the recession borne by this country in the past three years. It is simply not true that restoring decent pensions would place an unaffordable burden on this society.
  We are told, too, that the only way of doing this is if we somehow move to a personal insurance base for pensions. Again, it is worth considering the Government's figures. The most efficient way of delivering a pension is the state pension. The administrative costs involved in the state pension scheme amount to 1.2 per cent. of total pensions—60p per pension recipient per week. Any means-tested benefit, however, has an administrative cost of at least 10.2 per cent.—the cost of income support administration—amounting to £5.45 a week per recipient. My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury pointed out that the average administrative cost of private pension schemes is now 25 per cent. of contributions. The shift away from a state, comprehensive pension scheme to a series of private personal insurance-based schemes would mean paying considerably more to receive considerably less.
  I say that just as a piece of friendly advice to my colleagues on the Opposition Front Bench. If we believe that the answer is to be found in Singapore's stakeholder economy, it is worth consulting the International Monetary Fund report at the end of last year. It points out that the Singapore scheme reaches only 67 per cent. of the work force and that the level of benefits, which incidentally are not index-linked, is extremely meagre.
  We will not find a solution to the United Kingdom's problems in relation to poverty or the poverty gap in Singapore. We can, though, find real answers to the problems in many of the conceptual models originally set out by Beveridge. One of the most profound and

  255
  important of those is enshrined in the social insurance pay-as-you-go approach. The importance lies in the fact that it embodies the principle of acts of solidarity from one generation to another. The presumption is that people in work pay social insurance into a common pot that meets the needs of today's pensioners. It explains why pensioners' rights organisations, with which I have worked in my constituency and nationally, are increasingly voicing arguments in favour of a policy that will restore full employment and deliver universal pre-school education facilities.
  Why do those organisations support such a policy? They say that it is simple. Unless we have a properly employed adult population, who will earn wages to pay social insurance into the common pot, out of which we must draw our pensions? If we do not invest in our children's education, who will have the earning, industrial, design or technology skills that will deliver jobs and earnings that will again allow people to pay into the pot? If we do not invest in future generations, why should we expect them to accept a responsibility to make provision for us? It is very simple. The pay-as-you-go principle restores the link between the welfare system and commitments to full employment.
  It is enormously important to me that the pay-as-you-go principle allows us to return to the notion that benefits can be provided on the basis of universal entitlement, which are then linked to progressive taxation in ways that also offer a more equitable method of paying for the provision. Pensions are not cheap. About £29 billion is needed to meet the current cost of state pensions. It costs another £38 billion to make additional means-tested provision for pensioners. We must find ways to remove the bureaucracy associated with those undeclared costs to make it possible to deliver a full entitlement to stakeholding in a less cumbersome and costly way.
  If one is a pensioner, stakeholding means having the ability to pay one's own eating, heating and housing bills. If one is unemployed, it means having a job through which one pays taxation and into the social insurance fund. Britain pays one of the lowest rates of employer-based contributions in the whole of western Europe. In the United Kingdom, employers pay 3.6 per cent. of earnings into the social insurance fund. In France the figure is 8 per cent., and in Germany it is 9.6 per cent. In cash terms, out of every £100 an employer in the UK pays £10 in social insurance. In Germany an employer would pay £33; in France, £40; and in Italy and Sweden, £50.
  We need to return to the concepts of a welfare state based on universal principles. We need a progressive personal taxation regime matched with a progressive industrial tax regime, so that we tax more progressively those who earn not by producing goods but by speculating against wealth. We need to find ways in which to redistribute just a third of the extra £35 billion a year in tax handouts given to the top 10 per cent. of the population. This could be put to much better use paying for proper universal provision for all.
  9.11 pm
  Mr. Keith Bradley: As always, the uprating measures have given us the opportunity for a wide-ranging debate, and this year has
  256
  been no exception with its 10 very interesting speeches. This year the debate has ranged from Tory pensions policy in 1959, raised by the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler), through to snowbound roads in Dover, which I do not think relate to any part of the uprating measures.
  Last year's debate was dominated by proposals for the habitual residence test. I do not intend to refer to that; suffice it to say that the latest available figures show that in December 1995 more British people failed the test than either European nationals or people outside Europe. I would be grateful for the Minister's comments on how the test is working in that respect.
  I especially commend the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth), in which he raised points about incapacity benefit, particularly the introduction of the medical test. I should like to add to questions on the privatisation of the medical service queries about the application of the test for mental illness. There seems to be great evidence of inconsistency in the test across the country. I would be grateful for the Minister's comment. Although the new medical test for incapacity benefit is meant to focus the benefit more precisely, we should always remember, having passed the measure, that the amount of benefit one receives is less than one received on invalidity benefit.
  The planned expenditure on social security benefits for 1996–97 will be £90 billion, which includes almost £3 billion to finance increased benefit rates. As the Secretary of State said, that is £600 million higher than he expected because the rate of inflation was higher than he expected—or perhaps hoped.
  Although obviously we welcome the fact that many benefits have been increased by the full rate of 3.9 per cent., I must stress the fact that the income of the bottom 10 per cent. of people still fell by 18 per cent. between 1979 and 1993, although average income rose by 37 per cent., and the income of the top 10 per cent. rose by a staggering 61 per cent. People on benefit have clearly suffered from the increased inequalities that have arisen over the years of Tory Government. It should also be pointed out that, yet again, many elements in benefit calculations have not been uprated. Those include capital limits and earnings disregards for means-tested benefits.
  At Question Time today, my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Wicks) mentioned cold weather payments. I remind the House that in June 1991 the right hon. Member for Chelsea (Sir N. Scott) told the House in a written answer:
  "I propose to assure eligible people that if very cold weather arrives, they can turn up their heating. The Meteorological Office can now supply daily a forecast for each of the weather stations which we use which will indicate, with sufficient accuracy, the likely average temperature over the next seven days."—[Official Report, 14 June 1991; Vol. 192, c. 697.]
  That was supposed to enable people to know whether they would be eligible for the cold weather payments. But will the Minister comment on the way in which forecasts, rather than actual weather conditions, have been used, in a way that denies many people benefit?
  The social fund maternity grant has been frozen again, at £100, and the limit governing recovery of benefits from compensation payments has again been frozen at the 1990 level of £2,500. In the debate on last year's uprating order, I asked the Secretary of State why that item had been

  257
  excluded. I did not receive an answer last year, but now I ask the question again, and I hope that I shall receive an answer this year. A bone of contention for many people is the fact that, as benefits have risen, the clawback when compensation is paid has become even harsher, because the limit has not been increased. Will the Minister explain why that relationship has not been restored?
  Before considering further key elements in the Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order, I shall touch on two of the other instruments before us. The first is the draft Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order. In last year's debate, I suggested that 1995 would be the last year in which such an order would come before us, but I was wrong because the Pensions Act 1995 does not come into force until 1997.
  I did not receive an answer to the question that I asked then either, so I shall ask it again: under the new pension arrangements, will there be a pension guarantee similar to that provided by the Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order? I ask a more specific question too: how many people who are currently protected by the pensions guarantee will not be so protected under the new arrangements?
  My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) asked about pension splitting on divorce. I too press that question, and I ask the Minister to tell us tonight whether the Government support pension splitting, and what timetable they would like to introduce to ensure that its benefits come through to the country as fast as possible.
  The amendments to the child support regulations increase the minimum amount of child support payable by the liable parent from £2.40 a week to £4.80 a week. We accept the principle that the liable parent, often the father, should make a contribution, but recent changes to the child support formula have limited the liability of absent parents not on benefit, whereas the doubling of the sum payable by those on benefit hits those on the lowest level of subsistence, who are probably the fathers least able to pay.
  The fact that the increase will be paid largely for the benefit of the Treasury rather than paid to the parent with care, or more specifically for the benefit of the child, is important. The extra payment will be deducted pound for pound from the income of a lone parent on benefit. I therefore take the opportunity to urge the Government yet again to consider a child maintenance disregard, so that children really benefit from any additional payment to the parent with care.
  Three main areas of concern in the uprating order have been highlighted in speeches tonight: lone parents, housing benefit changes and fraud. First, on lone-parent benefit, the Secretary of State claims that he is concerned neither to penalise nor to promote lone parenthood and, to this end, he proposes to freeze one-parent benefit and lone-parent premium. He has further signalled his intention to narrow the gap between the benefits for lone parents and those for couples. However, one-parent benefit and lone-parent premium together cost £600 million a year—a small fraction of the £9.4 billion spent on benefits generally for lone parents. It has been clearly pointed out that freezing the benefits will produce tiny savings of no real benefit to the Treasury. Although the weekly gain from the benefits for lone parents may appear small, such sums are very important to people with
  258
  low incomes. Although no direct cut is to be made this year, lone parents will be worse off as the value of the benefit will be eroded in real terms because it has been frozen.
  We heard tonight about the research evidence that outlines the extra costs of lone parenthood. In particular, the research published by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation in December 1995 showed that one-parent families face substantially higher costs in relative terms than two-parent families. The research concluded that both the lone-parent premium and the one-parent benefit should be retained.
  In contrast, there is no evidence to suggest that benefits for lone parents are so generous that they more than meet the extra costs of lone parenthood, thereby leaving lone parents materially better off than couples with children. Crucially, one-parent benefit—because it is not means-tested—helps lone parents out of the poverty trap and into work. To freeze the benefit appears to run counter to the Government's stated desire to help lone parents back to work.
  The Child Poverty Action Group has pointed out that the risk of poverty for the children of lone parents is greater than the risk for children with two parents. Some 78 per cent. of children of lone-parent families are living on or below income support levels in 1992, compared with 18 per cent. of two-parent families. It is hard to see how reducing lone-parent benefits will do anything other than increase child poverty. I urge the Government to reconsider the proposal.
  Clearly, we welcome measures that help lone parents back to work, and obviously we welcome the extension of the child care disregard. But it must be pointed out that it is a disregard, and not a payment, that has been extended from £40 to £60 a week. The amount that a person receives will depend on the benefits to which he or she is entitled, so in many cases the amount he or she receives will be substantially less than the £60 disregard. It must be pointed out that those parents who are already fully in receipt of benefits such as family credit will gain nothing at all from the increase in the disregard because there are no benefits to offset against that disregard.
  Secondly, it is clear from the debate that our concerns fall in two particular areas: the changes to housing benefit administration and the changes to the eligibility for housing benefit for people under the age of 25. First, on administration, we heard that housing benefit will in future be paid in arrears rather than in advance, with the aim of reducing the incidence of overpayment. However, many housing associations and organisations such as the National Federation of Housing Associations have expressed grave concern about the proposals. Despite the Government's argument that such a move would be to the advantage of claimants, the opposite appears to be the case. Given that most landlords require at the start of a tenancy both a deposit and a payment of rent, the move is likely to create considerable difficulties for those on benefit or low incomes. There are strong arguments for housing benefit to be paid in advance, therefore, although most other benefits are paid in arrears.
  Added to that change will be a proposed reduction in the preconditions for eviction from 13 weeks' to eight weeks' rent arrears and shortfalls in rent caused by the reductions in housing benefit following the January 1996 changes. Clearly, the implications of the Government's

  259
  changes have not been fully thought through. They will cause considerable problems for people trying to take up their first tenancies.
  Secondly, on the policy that housing benefit for single people under 25 should be restricted to the average cost of local shared accommodation, the Government clearly believe that there is some difference between 24-year-olds and 25-year-olds. The under-25s are already discriminated against in that they are entitled to lower amounts of income support and housing benefit. That discrimination will shortly be reinforced when young people who have paid contributions will none the less receive lower benefits through contributory benefit under the jobseeker's allowance.
  The effects of the proposed measures will add to the discrimination. Furthermore, because their income is lower, it will be more difficult for young people to top up their housing benefit from other sources. That situation will be further exacerbated by the increase—yet again—in the non-dependant deductions for housing benefit. Recent evidence submitted by the Child Poverty Action Group to the Social Security Advisory Committee shows that nearly half those affected are aged over 60 and about five out of six non-dependants were adult children of claimants.
  The emphasis on non-dependant deductions is worrying, given the possible interrelationship with the measures to reduce housing benefit for the under-25s. Clearly, the consequences will be increased homelessness and vulnerability for young people, who will have to seek inadequate and inappropriate accommodation.
  On the third issue, fraud, the Secretary of State says:
  "to be able to help those in need we have to stop fraud".
  No one would argue with that, but does that imply that the savings are to be ploughed back into improving benefit levels? There has been no sign of that to date.
  Similarly, how much money is going to be saved though anti-fraud measures? My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury highlighted the apparent discrepancy between the uprating statement and the Red Book—either it is an annual amount of £2.5 billion, or £2.5 billion spread over three years. I have written to the Secretary of State asking for clarification, but I have not received a reply to date. Perhaps the Minister will be able to tell us clearly tonight how much he expects to save on fraud in the next three years.
  It is also important to highlight the take-up of benefits. It is estimated that between £1.5 billion and £2.3 billion in means-tested benefits alone were not claimed between 1992 and 1994.
  In respect of the anti-fraud measures that we welcome, the proposal to increase home visits to 1 million a year is interesting. Is it not ironic that they were originally reduced and even abandoned in parts of the country because they were too costly? When they take place, at the same time as the investigations into fraud, there could be investigations to ensure that the claimant is receiving all the benefits to which he or she is entitled and that those are promptly and accurately assessed.
  We have had a wide-ranging debate on the facts of the changes. We have seen that, although many vulnerable groups may have been protected through the uprating
  260
  statement because benefits have been uprated in line with inflation, no real measures have been taken to modernise the benefit system and to strengthen work incentives.
  Key vulnerable groups, particularly lone parents and young people under 25, have been significantly further disadvantaged by the proposals in the uprating statement. Labour Members believe that the welcome measures which may help lone parents back to work, which I have supported, will be significantly outweighed by the measures to devalue the lone-parent premium and the one-parent benefit and by the significant cuts in housing benefit to people under 25.
  Overall, there is absolutely nothing in the uprating system to suggest that the Government wish to reverse the damaging trend of increased poverty and inequality. The facts and figures in relation to that trend are overwhelming. One in three children in the United Kingdom now live in poverty, and nothing that the Secretary of State has announced tonight will alleviate that situation or truly take people out of poverty traps and unemployment traps and ensure that there is a genuine attempt to distribute resources to those most in need of them.
  The Secretary of State claims that his approach to the reform of the welfare state is radical and far-sighted. It is in fact no more than the salami-slicing of one benefit after another. The reforms are not targeted, as he has suggested, but are genuine cuts in benefit for those in the greatest need. There could be no clearer evidence of the effect of the cuts than the suffering and horror of disabled people who have been on sickness benefit—they come to our advice bureaux, one after the other—after the introduction of incapacity benefit.
  Clearly we shall not vote against the uprating order, because we do not want to deny to many people the uprating of benefits by the rate of inflation, but there are many difficulties with the benefits in the uprating order. We shall certainly oppose the regulations dealing with family law and child support because they do even more damage to families who are in the greatest need.
  9.32 pm
  The Minister for Social Security and Disabled People (Mr. Alistair Burt): As the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley) said, this has been a long and well-informed debate, with many useful speeches from hon. Members. Some of my hon. Friends' speeches, in particular, have got to grips with some very difficult social security issues. I shall make reference to those speeches shortly.
  We have also had some illuminating speeches from some Opposition Members. We shall have to wait to see whether the British public like them as much as Opposition Front Benchers did. I shall also return to those speeches.
  First, I should like to set this debate in context. At the heart of these measures is the annual increase in benefit rates, which will once again provide general protection for the purchasing power of benefits, with increases in line with inflation at September 1995. The cost of the measures will be £2.7 million in 1996–97. However, as most hon. Members have said, this debate is about more than a mere catalogue of benefit changes. It is an annual opportunity to contrast the way in which the Government approach a crucial sphere of public policy—with foresight

  261
  and decision—and the pleas of Opposition Members, which are long on analysis but woefully short on commitments.
  In recent years, three things in particular have characterised social security debates. The first has been the growing realisation among all of us that social security is no longer the Cinderella of politics. The sheer size and scale of the social security budget commands at least our awed respect, as we recognise that without determined control, often involving difficult judgments, unchecked social security expenditure could monopolise the Government's expenditure options.
  The second characteristic has been the quality that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has brought to the deliberations on social security as he has sought to pursue a policy of measured reform. Social security is not solely about budgets. It has profound effects on how people live and organise their lives, on how much they can plan for themselves, for their health and their retirement and on the extent to which it is right and proper that the rest of society should be part of those plans as a support in times of trouble. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has moved social security into the modern era and taken the intellectual case for reform to the public frequently and boldly.
  That debate has been met on occasions by thoughtful responses, often from the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), whose absence was noticeable today—we are sorry for that, and the debate will have suffered accordingly—sometimes by political commentators and, in rare flashes, by timorous soundings from Opposition spokesmen.
  The third characteristic of these debates has surely been the growing gap between a Government who are prepared to think and to do, in terms of social security, and an Opposition who find it difficult enough to think of anything practical on the subject and are scared stiff of being called on to do anything.
  I deal now with the meat of some of the issues raised today. The first aspect on which I shall dwell is total social security expenditure. My hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) made especially thoughtful contributions. They put some thought into the very nature and structure of social security and brought out very well the way in which we have grappled with some of the problems. They appreciate that what has happened on the continent and, indeed, in this country since the last world war, could not be sustained for ever in the changing circumstances. They, at least, were prepared to deal with the difficult problems.
  By contrast, the most illuminating speeches made by Opposition Members came from the unholy trinity of the hon. Members for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson), for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) and for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn). As I am sure my colleagues realise, what we heard from them was really Labour in action. It was what we know and love from the Labour party. The depth of our enjoyment was matched only by the depth of misery on the faces of Members of the Opposition Front Bench as they realised that, in the unlikely event of their ever coming to office, their hon. Friends on the Back Benches will either be the tail that wags the dog or, more dangerously for the British public, the very dog itself. We certainly enjoyed their contributions. All the way
  262
  through their speeches, I was waiting for confirmation from Opposition spokesmen of the variety of suggestions gallantly put forward by their colleagues.
  The hon. Member for Nottingham, South, whose pieces I occasionally read in New Statesman and Society, set out a coherent socialist philosophy. I am sure that it must be as much a matter of despair to him as it is to the rest of us that his contributions are received wordlessly by his Front-Bench colleagues. I cannot see much of what he has to say that his Front-Bench colleagues should not be prepared to own up to.
  I sometimes wonder which hon. Member who represents Islington will really control social security policy in future. The hon. Member for Islington, North gave us his solution to the problem, which is the abandonment of capitalism and the reinstatement of socialism everywhere. As for the hon. Member for Leyton—don't you love him? There is only one Harry. He is a straightforward, decent man whose sincerity everyone properly respects and understands because he cares. I do not agree with his solutions, but he cares.
  One of the points that the hon. Member for Leyton raised and which I most want to take up, to show that we recognise the problems that he mentioned and that we want to assist, relates to work incentives. He talked about his foster son. The problem that he mentioned is very real. Our unemployment situation is far better than that of many of our neighbours. The hon. Gentleman might like to incorporate that fact in his thinking when contrasting economic policies. However, when unemployment has been higher than we would wish, the problem is that it naturally squeezes the gap between wages and benefit. It is therefore a matter of concern to all of us that we should develop incentives to get people back to work.
  The hon. Member for Leyton is wrong to believe that it is only his colleagues who have come to welfare-to-work; in fact, they have come rather late to it. The strategy of work incentives has been a consistent part of the philosophy of Conservative Members. In the 1994 Budget package, we tried to remove uncertainty at the point of the moving into work. Measures such as the faster processing of family credit claims, housing benefit, council tax benefit, extended payments, the back-to-work bonus and the child maintenance bonus all helped to deal with that uncertainty.
  We wanted to provide measures to make work pay better and the longer earnings premium and especially the pilot of earnings top-up may be of interest. Lastly, we wanted to encourage employers to look more favourably on the long-termed unemployed, through reductions in employers' national insurance contributions and measures announced in the orders. We have tried to employ all those measures to deal with a difficult problem that we regard as being as much of an issue as do Labour Members.
  Mr. Chris Smith: If the Minister is so concerned to encourage people out of benefit and into work, why in these very uprating orders is he freezing one-parent benefit, announcing that he will cap housing benefit for the under-25s and increasing non-dependant deductions for housing benefit, all of which will act counter to a reasonable welfare-to-work strategy?
  Mr. Burt: I do not believe that they will. I want to talk about lone parents and the effect that the Gentleman has

  263
  mentioned because it is not significant when taken in comparison with the work incentive measures that we have produced, quite deliberately, for lone parents. If he will allow me, I will come to that.
  Incentives for going to work are a matter of great importance to us. Our policies have been outstandingly successful. It is hard to imagine that we have more people employed as a percentage of our population than do most of our European neighbours. Our unemployment is lower than that of any significant European Community country. The reason for that is that we have had to take some of the difficult decisions. The way in which we have dealt with the benefit system has contributed to the better situation.
  There was prolonged discussion about lone parents. That was raised by the hon. Members for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley), for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) and for Rochdale (Ms Lynne). I am sick and tired of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's position on lone parents being mauled by commentators and Opposition Members. I have a copy of part of his speech to party conference in 1993 because there is a part that is frequently not mentioned when this difficulty is being discussed. He was concerned about the breakdown of families and said:
  "There are now 1.3 million lone parents. Many find themselves lone parents against their will. Widows, divorced and separated people struggle alone, but often successfully, to bring their children up well. They deserve not blame but support."
  [Interruption.] I could go on. My right hon. Friend went on to say that the fastest growing group was that of people who never married. He talked about his concerns about lone parents and their families and especially the effects on children.
  I want to describe what we have done to protect and support the position of lone parents in our society. The hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) made several thoughtful points about policies on lone parents. He questioned whether it was appropriate for lone parents with young children to go to work. It is not the Government's policy to force them to work, but to encourage them to do so. We are more generous on that point than most comparable countries. In France, lone parents are expected to take work when their children are only three. In most European Community and OECD countries, except the UK, the proportion of lone parents who work is greater than the proportion of mothers in couples who work. Britain is almost unique in not requiring lone parents to seek work until their youngest child is 16.
  The crucial point is that it is only by working that lone parents can improve living standards for themselves and for their children. On average, lone parents in work improve their income by some £30 a week. There is no way that a responsible Government could improve income support by that amount. Lone parents already consume more than 10 per cent. of social security budget. Our aim must be to reduce that figure and not to increase it. If we can achieve that by encouraging lone parents into work, it will benefit both those parents and society as a whole. We have assisted lone parents into work in a number of ways. They receive the same adult credit as two-parent families for family credit and the disability working allowance. We have taken a series of measures in recent
  264
  years, including maintenance disregard and reducing the qualifying hours for family credit, which have helped lone parents into work.
  The Government's aim is to narrow the gap between benefits for lone parents and for couples over time. We intend to have no cash losers and the pace of change must be gradual. The first step is not increasing lone parent benefits in 1996. I shall give the background for that decision, as it has been questioned tonight.
  In the past two decades, there has been a huge increase both in the number of lone parents and in their cost to the taxpayer. The benefit system provides special assistance to lone parents which couples do not have. Two components of benefit for lone parents have no equivalent for couples: the one-parent benefit and the lone parent premium, which cost about £600 million per year. In order to start bringing the treatment of one-parent and two-parent families into line, no increase is proposed in either benefit next April.
  The Government intend to continue to narrow the gap between benefits for lone parents and for couples over time. The one-parent benefit has always been recognised as something of an anomaly. It was introduced in 1976 as a strictly temporary measure and it has long been recognised that there is duplication between the one-parent benefit for those in work and the extra assistance that lone parents receive through the tax system.
  For those lone parents on income support—the lone parent premium—a lot has changed as well. There are far greater opportunities to gain from work. Family credit has been greatly improved and next year it will direct about £2 billion in assistance to lower-paid families. That is a five-fold increase since 1988. In 1988 only one lone parent was working and on family credit for every 10 who were on income support. The ratio is now one in four. The position in society of lone parents who are looking after children has been improved by those measures, and we want their position to improve still further.
  The small measures that we have announced tonight do not detract from that long-term policy. However, they begin to tackle the issue that was addressed fairly and squarely by the hon. Member for Birkenhead—Opposition Members did not refer to it and they ducked the challenge issued by my right hon. Friend this afternoon. We must begin to redress the balance between lone-parent families and working couples. We believe that the country wishes that to occur. It is the right balance to strike: it is not an abandonment of single parents.
  I turn now to the questions about the child support changes. All absent parents are responsible for maintaining their children, and it is right that those on low incomes should make a small contribution in that regard. Establishing liability at the outset reinforces responsibility for when the absent parents' circumstances improve. Conservative Members do not like to think that people stay on benefit for ever because that is not necessarily a realistic view. Therefore, many people will not remain on low incomes or income support indefinitely.
  A key principle of the Child Support Act 1991 is that all parents are responsible for maintaining their children whenever they can afford to do so. There is no reason why those absent parents who receive income support should be treated any differently from those on low incomes. The 10 per cent. rate reinforces parental

  265
  responsibility and represents a more realistic level of support. As to safeguards and protections, the existing provisions that exempt from payment those absent parents who are sick or disabled or who have responsibility for their children in new families will remain in place. Similarly, the existing provisions for maximum deductions from income support and the priority order for deductions remain unchanged.
  Labour Members said a great deal about the need to maintain income support at a particular level below which it should not drop. However, they made no mention of the existing system of deductions for fuel, which allows for a deduction of up to 15 per cent. The child maintenance system will not interfere with that—if it is right and appropriate for fuel deductions, it is equally right and even more appropriate for child maintenance.
  Mr. Chris Smith: The point is that the needs allowance in calculating income support for people in that position takes account of their need to heat their homes and to keep warm. The needs allowance does not take account of their need to pay added maintenance for their children.
  Mr. Burt: Labour Members said that it was wrong to derogate from the principle of the income support payment; I said that deductions are already allowed. It is quite appropriate that a child maintenance deduction should be similarly allowed, because it does not breach the principle and it does not involve a higher percentage of deduction than for any of the other needs elements. One either believes or does not believe that parents have a responsibility towards their children—there is no argument between us on that point—but actually to make it count in difficult circumstances is one of the fundamental differences between the Government and the Opposition. When it comes to making difficult decisions, the Government make them; when it comes to talking about difficult decisions, the Opposition funk them on every occasion.
  Parents with care who receive income support—it is always claimed that they do not benefit—will benefit from the increased payment in two ways: first, maintenance is a portable income that helps them if they wish to return to work, and even small levels of maintenance can help in this respect; secondly, the payment of maintenance will count towards the child maintenance bonus that is due to be introduced in April 1997. The bonus will obviously accrue at a faster rate than would be the case if the minimum payment were to remain at the existing level. For all those reasons, I believe that we should support the order before the House.
  Labour Members have had the effrontery to raise the issue of cold weather payments. If Labour Members do not understand the term "cold weather payments" it is because it did not exist until the Government put it in place. The system of assistance for those in need, who wanted help with their fuel payments, was so rudimentary under the Labour Government that it did not even have a special name. The Government have done much to improve it—there is a whole list of improvements, dating back to 1980.
  The cold weather payment rates were increased in November 1995 by some 20 per cent.—which I do not remember being celebrated or supported by Labour
  266
  Members. Certain benefits are not uprated automatically, and that is one of them, but there is no doubt that the way in which the Government have coped with cold weather payments—they are automatic, they are triggered automatically and they are publicised by local advertisements—puts the previous Labour Government to shame. I am amazed that Labour Members raised that issue.
  A number of hon. Members referred to pension splitting. This is an important issue, and I am content to put a Government statement on the record. The Government are not unsympathetic to pension splitting. The Lord Chancellor has rightly issued consultation documents on the measures taken in last year's Pensions Act. Those measures should go some way to dealing with people's concerns.
  Pension splitting raises serious issues of equity, complexity and cost, which have to be balanced against any perceived advantages. It requires full and detailed consideration, which is why the Lord Chancellor feels that it is quite impossible to deal with it satisfactorily in the timetable of the Family Law Bill. We are unable to accept the amendments moved by Baroness Hollis of Heigham in another place. Therefore, consultation is necessary to give full consideration to all the issues involved in pension splitting.
  A number of hon. Members raised the issue of fraud. Labour Members were interested in fraud only tangentially—they wished to push me in relation to the figures that were involved. The more crucial questions of fraud were raised by my right hon. and hon. Friends. When it comes to fraud, the Labour party pays only lip service—and lip service has been paid only since the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) was sharp enough to cotton on to the fact that, after yet another general election disaster, the Labour party had for too long been tagged with those who cheat and defraud.
  The Government have been prepared to take the difficult decisions. It was entirely true to form that today my right hon. and hon. Friends were the only ones who seriously went into the issues and were prepared to raise them. There are difficulties with housing benefit fraud. My hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) said that the Social Security Select Committee was looking at the possibility of fraud varying from 6 per cent. to 18 per cent.—a total of some £2 billion a year. It is no wonder that it warrants careful investigation by the House and the Government.
  Mention has been made of asylum seekers. That is a difficult and sensitive issue partly because of the image portrayed in the media and supported slavishly by Opposition Members, who suggest that everyone who claims political asylum arrives in the United Kingdom as a penniless refugee. That is not true. The vast majority of those who claim political asylum arrive in the United Kingdom having told visa officers abroad and visa entry clearance officers in the United Kingdom that they were students or business people or that they were on holiday and could look after themselves. They then change their story and claim political asylum. It has been one of the nastiest trades in human misery. Even Amnesty International knows that fraud and abuse take place. The Government do something about it while the

  267
  Opposition talk about it and do nothing. It is a difficult and sensitive issue. Only the Government have devoted the time, the effort and the determination to deal with it.
  Ms Lynne: Although I realise that there are many bogus asylum seekers, does the Minister not agree that the rules that the Government are introducing will trap genuine asylum seekers because many of them apply in country. In the past, the Government allowed genuine asylum seekers into Britain. Surely they must do that in future.
  Mr. Burt: No one is stopping them coming into Britain. It is a question of whether they rely on the generosity of the British taxpayer, having said when they arrived that they would do something quite different. In time, our measures will be seen as straightforward. We should not forget that fewer than 10 per cent. of those who claim asylum turn out to be genuine.
  What about the dog that did not bark tonight? Whenever the Opposition were challenged on what they would do with our social security system, there was a deafening silence. It is not fair that when we discuss important uprating orders on social security, the British people are left in the dark about what the Labour party's plans might be.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield reminded us that the pensions-earnings link has been a crucial part of Labour manifesto programmes for a long time. When challenged on that, would the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury confirm that it was still Opposition policy? He said that they were thinking about it. Opposition Back-Bench Members should take note of the fact that he fudged it and ducked it.
  The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury was challenged on the power of the trade unions in the stakeholder society that the Opposition were so keen to talk about recently. He tried to suggest that the unions would have nothing to do with it and they would not be the stakeholders that the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) was talking about just a few weeks ago. That is not the view of the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone), however. He said recently on television:
  "If the trade unions are saying, 'we aren't prepared to see cuts in the welfare state', there is absolutely nothing a Labour Government can do about it. A Labour Government cannot govern without carrying the trade unions with it … We can't govern without the support of the trade unions."
  We all know who will make policy in a stakeholder society where the trade unions are major stakeholders.
  The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury was challenged again on housing benefit and the state earnings-related pension scheme. When he was asked whether he would actually reverse any of the changes that we have made to social security, the hon. Gentleman bottled it and refused to answer. When challenged, he made no commitment to change anything. The hon. Gentleman takes all the credit from the lobby groups outside for opposing our reforms, but offers them absolutely nothing by way of any solid commitment as to what he would actually do.
  Then there was the retreat. About a week ago, when the Government announced plans to review the running costs of the Department of Social Security appeal and
  268
  suggested that those costs could be reined back by up to 25 per cent., the hon. Gentleman could not respond quickly enough to say how dreadful those plans were. Today we revealed a letter from one of his colleagues saying that those plans were entirely feasible. Did we have an honourable withdrawal from the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury? Did we heck—there was no chance of that.
  The debate has again shown a Government with a determination to control public expenditure and to provide the best social security system that can be afforded and with the courage to take essential decisions in contrast with a "say nothing, do less" Opposition, who are devoid of ideas of their own and have tracked the world in search of a policy, only to find that there is no place like home. The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury was committed, like all his predecessors, to think the unthinkable, and he has finally got it right: the unthinkable is that the Tories have got it right. The House should spare the hon. Gentleman further embarrassment.
  We have protected those in need and we are determined to reform social security and to provide a solid basis of welfare. I invite all my right hon. and hon. Friends and those Opposition Members who believe in those principles to join us in the Lobby tonight.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the draft Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order 1996, which was laid before this House on 31st January, be approved.
  It being after Ten o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the remaining Questions required to be put at that hour.
  Resolved,
  That the draft Social Security (Contributions) (Re-rating and National Insurance Fund Payments) Order 1996, which was laid before this House on 31st January, be approved.
  That the draft Social Security (Contributions) Amendment Regulations 1996, which were laid before this House on 31st January, be approved.
  That the draft Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order 1996, which was laid before this House on 31st January, be approved.
  That the draft Social Security (Incapacity for Work) (General) Amendment Regulations 1996, which were laid before this House on 31st January, be approved.—[Mr. Lilley.]
  Motion made, and Question put,
  That the draft Child Support (Maintenance Assessments and Special Cases) and Social Security (Claims and Payments) Amendment Regulations 1996, which were laid before this House on 31st January, be approved.—[Mr. Lilley.]
  The House divided: Ayes 284, Noes 261.

  Division No. 56]

  [10.00 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)

  Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Alexander, Richard

  Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Baldry, Tony

  Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

  Banks, Matthew (Southport)

  Amess, David

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Bates; Michael

  Arbuthnot, James

  Batiste, Spencer

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Bendall, Vivian

  Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Ashby, David

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Atkins, Rt Hon Robert

  Body, Sir Richard

  269

  Booth, Hartley

  Garnier, Edward

  Boswell, Tim

  Gill, Christopher

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Bowden, Sir Andrew

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Bowis, John

  Gorst, Sir John

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Brazier, Julian

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Bright, Sir Graham

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Budgen, Nicholas

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald

  Burns, Simon

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Burt, Alistair

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Butcher, John

  Hannam, Sir John

  Butterfill, John

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Haselhurst, Sir Alan

  Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Hawkins, Nick

  Carrington, Matthew

  Hawksley, Warren

  Carttiss, Michael

  Hayes, Jerry

  Cash, William

  Heald, Oliver

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Chapman, Sir Sydney

  Hendry, Charles

  Churchill, Mr

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Clappison, James

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Hill, James (Southampton Test)

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Horam, John

  Coe, Sebastian

  Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Colvin, Michael

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Congdon, David

  Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Conway, Derek

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Cope, Rt Hon Sir John

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Cran, James

  Jack, Michael

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

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Jessel, Toby

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Day, Stephen

  Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Devlin, Tim

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Dover, Den

  Knapman, Roger

  Duncan, Alan

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)

  Dunn, Bob

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

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Knox, Sir David

  Dykes, Hugh

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Eggar, Rt Hon Tim

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Elletson, Harold

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Legg, Barry

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Lidington, David

  Evennett, David

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Faber, David

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Fabricant, Michael

  Lord, Michael

  Fenner, Dame Peggy

  Luff, Peter

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Fishburn, Dudley

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Forman, Nigel

  MacKay, Andrew

  Forth, Eric

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  Fox, Rt Hon Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  Madel, Sir David

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  French, Douglas

  Malone, Gerald

  Fry, Sir Peter

  Marland, Paul

  Gale, Roger

  Marlow, Tony

  Gallie, Phil

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  270

  Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

  Smyth, The Reverend Martin

  Mates, Michael

  Soames, Nicholas

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Mellor, Rt Hon David

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Merchant, Piers

  Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)

  Mills, Iain

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Spring, Richard

  Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

  Sproat, Iain

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon Sir James

  Steen, Anthony

  Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector

  Stephen, Michael

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Stern, Michael

  Needham, Rt Hon Richard

  Stewart, Allan

  Nelson, Anthony

  Streeter, Gary

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Sweeney, Walter

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Sykes, John

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Norris, Steve

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Page, Richard

  Thomason, Roy

  Paice, James

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Thurnham, Peter

  Pawsey, James

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

  Pickles, Eric

  Tracey, Richard

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Tredinnick, David

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Trend, Michael

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Trotter, Neville

  Rathbone, Tim

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Richards, Rod

  Walden, George

  Riddick, Graham

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Robathan, Andrew

  Waller, Gary

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Ward, John

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Waterson, Nigel

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Watts, John

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Wells, Bowen

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Whitney, Ray

  Sackville, Tom

  Whittingdale, John

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  Wilkinson, John

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Willetts, David

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Shepherd, Sir Colin (Hereford)

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'fld)

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Yeo, Tim

  Shersby, Sir Michael

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Sims, Roger

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

  Mr. Timothy Wood and Mr. Richard Ottaway.

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Bell, Stuart

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Ainger, Nick

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Benton, Joe

  Allen, Graham

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Alton, David

  Berry, Roger

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Betts, Clive

  Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

  Blunkett, David

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Boateng, Paul

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Bradley, Keith

  Ashton, Joe

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Austin-Walker, John

  Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

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

  Barnes, Harry

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Barron, Kevin

  Burden, Richard

  Battle, John

  Byers, Stephen

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Callaghan, Jim

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  271

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Gordon, Mildred

  Campbell-Savours, D N

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Cann, Jamie

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Chidgey, David

  Grocott, Bruce

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Gunnell, John

  Church, Judith

  Hain, Peter

  Clapham, Michael

  Hall, Mike

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Hanson, David

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Hardy, Peter

  Clelland, David

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Harvey, Nick

  Coffey, Ann

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Cohen, Harry

  Henderson, Doug

  Connarty, Michael

  Hendron, Dr Joe

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Heppell, John

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Corbett, Robin

  Hinchliffe, David

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Hodge, Margaret

  Corston, Jean

  Hoey, Kate

  Cousins, Jim

  Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)

  Cox, Tom

  Home Robertson, John

  Cummings, John

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

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

  Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

  Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

  Hoyle, Doug

  Cunningham, Roseanna

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Dafis, Cynog

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

  Darling, Alistair

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

  Hutton, John

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

  Illsley, Eric

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Ingram, Adam

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  Denham, John

  Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Dewar, Donald

  Janner, Greville

  Dixon, Don

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Dobson, Frank

  Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Dowd, Jim

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  Jowell, Tessa

  Eastham, Ken

  Keen, Alan

  Fatchett, Derek

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)

  Faulds, Andrew

  Khabra, Piara S

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Fisher, Mark

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Flynn, Paul

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Liddell, Mrs Helen

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Litherland, Robert

  Foulkes, George

  Livingstone, Ken

  Fyfe, Maria

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Garrett, John

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  George, Bruce

  Loyden, Eddie

  Gerrard, Neil

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  McAllion, John

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  McCartney, Ian

  Godsiff, Roger

  McFall, John

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  McKelvey, William

  272

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  McLeish, Henry

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

  Maclennan, Robert

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  McNamara, Kevin

  Rogers, Allan

  MacShane, Denis

  Rooker, Jeff

  McWilliam, John

  Rooney, Terry

  Madden, Max

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Maddock, Diana

  Ruddock, Joan

  Mahon, Alice

  Salmond, Alex

  Mandelson, Peter

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Marek, Dr John

  Sheerman, Barry

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)

  Short, Clare

  Martin, Michael J (Springburn)

  Simpson, Alan

  Martlew, Eric

  Skinner, Dennis

  Maxton, John

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Meacher, Michael

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

  Meale, Alan

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Michael, Alun

  Spearing, Nigel

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Spellar, John

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

  Milburn, Alan

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Miller, Andrew

  Stevenson, George

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Stott, Roger

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Straw, Jack

  Morley, Elliot

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Mowlam, Marjorie

  Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

  Mudie, George

  Timms, Stephen

  Mullin, Chris

  Tipping, Paddy

  Murphy, Paul

  Touhig, Don

  O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)

  Trickett, Jon

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Tyler, Paul

  O'Hara, Edward

  Vaz, Keith

  Olner, Bill

  Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Wallace, James

  Parry, Robert

  Walley, Joan

  Pearson, Ian

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Pendry, Tom

  Watson, Mike

  Pickthall, Colin

  Welsh, Andrew

  Pike, Peter L

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Pope, Greg

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

  Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Wilson, Brian

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Winnick, David

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Wise, Audrey

  Purchase, Ken

  Worthington, Tony

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Wray, Jimmy

  Radice, Giles

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Randall, Stuart

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Raynsford, Nick

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Reid, Dr John

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones and Mrs. Jane Kennedy.

  Rendel, David

  Question accordingly agreed to.

  Crime (West Yorkshire)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Knapman.]
  10.16 pm
  Mr. Graham Riddick: As we all know, Adjournment debates provide hon. Members with excellent opportunities to raise matters of local concern. The fight against crime is a national problem, but it emphasises the everyday concerns of many of my constituents. Only yesterday, I received a report from the co-ordinator of the neighbourhood watch scheme in Golcar, detailing a catalogue of burglaries, car thefts and other crimes in the village in recent months. Crime and the fear of crime probably feature in my constituency post bag more than any other issue. Tonight, I want to talk about what can be done to make my constituents feel safer in their homes and neighbourhoods.
  I am delighted that the Minister who is to respond is my close neighbour and hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Mr. Kirkhope). He is an assiduous constituency Member as well as a first-class Minister, and, like me, he wants firm action to be taken against crime.
  It is not inevitable that crime will increase. Indeed, we should take some encouragement from the fact that, over the past two to three years, crime has been falling. My constituency is in the Huddersfield division of the West Yorkshire police area. The total number of crimes committed in that division fell from 25,435 in 1993 to 22,014 in 1995; that is a decrease of 13.4 per cent., and compares to a 10 per cent. fall across the country in the same period and an 8 per cent. fall in West Yorkshire as a whole.
  Huddersfield's reduction in crime has been better than that in the rest of the country. One reason for that could be the success of the so-called Biting Back campaign, in which the police have targeted individuals in households who have already been victims of crime and who, according to research, are much more likely to be victims in future. During the trial's first nine months, the targeting of repeat crime led to a fall in domestic burglaries of 24 per cent. compared with a fall in West Yorkshire of only 4 per cent. Clearly, therefore, the scheme needs to be extended throughout the county and the country.
  Since 1979, the Government have increased spending on the police enormously so that, today, national expenditure is £6.8 billion. Spending on the police in West Yorkshire has increased by 98 per cent. in real terms after inflation during that period. Much of that extra money has resulted in more officers being available at the sharp end. Considering the coming financial year, I am especially pleased that, in a tight spending round, the Government have been able to make an extra £9 million available for West Yorkshire police. In a press release last Friday, West Yorkshire police authority said that the force intended to deploy an extra 50 police officers in the coming financial year. That comes on top of an increase of more than 100 officers in 1995.
  I pay tribute to the chief constable of West Yorkshire, Mr. Keith Hellawell, whose excellent management of the force has made it possible to appoint more police officers. That has been achieved by reducing the number of
  274
  retirements on the ground of ill health, by lower sickness levels and by a reduction in the number of middle-management posts.
  In January 1992, there were 90 West Yorkshire officers holding the ranks of superintendent and chief superintendent. Today, there are only 50. That has saved more than £2 million annually in salary alone. Those savings have been used to appoint extra police officers. That is an excellent example for all forces to follow.
  I quote with total approval the comments of the Labour chairman of West Yorkshire police authority, councillor Tom Brennan. In last Friday's press release, he said:
  "The public is constantly telling us that they want to see more police on our streets—we can promise them that. We have sufficient funds this year to let the Chief Constable continue the substantial recruitment programme. It is the best news that I have been able to give to West Yorkshire on the policing front since I became Chairman six years ago."
  The chief constable deserves the plaudits but so do the Government, to whom I am most grateful for making more money available for the police. The authority's press release also pointed out that the on-going civilianisation programme could ultimately release another 100 experienced officers on to the streets.
  I wish even greater efforts to be made in the recruitment of special constables in particular. Their use is a relatively inexpensive but extremely effective way of increasing police presence and of helping to deter crime. I have one excellent example in my constituency. In the village of Meltham, which is right in the centre of constituency, a small number of special constables, under the excellent leadership of community constable Ian Oxley, has helped to reduce crime and vandalism levels by 50 per cent.
  I should dearly love more specials to undertake similar work in other villages in my constituency where we have difficulties with youngsters involved in vandalism, burglary and car theft. I hope that the Government and the West Yorkshire force will redouble their efforts on that front so that more special constables are recruited. I put to my hon. Friend the Minister the thought that it may be sensible to pay more meaningful allowances to attract more candidates.
  My hon. Friend might be interested to know that closed circuit television has played a role in the reduction of crime in Meltham. Last Friday, I attended a meeting in the village of Slaithwaite, from where I frequently receive complaints about vandalism and more serious crime, and where some people want to explore the possibility of having CCTV installed. There are numerous examples of places where CCTV has had a beneficial effect, and chief constables all over the country have been singing its praises. I am delighted that the Government have made available £15 million for CCTV schemes in the coming year. I should like to register at this early stage in the bidding process my support for proposed schemes in the Holme and Colne valleys in my constituency which I am sure will be submitted to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary.
  Only so much can be done at a local level to fight crime. It is crucial that the Government's policies help the police to fight crime and give the courts the powers to deal with criminals properly. I am therefore extremely pleased that at long last, after 30 years of liberal penal policy, we have a Home Secretary who is giving the police the tools that they need to fight crime, who is tough on crime, and, most importantly, who is tough on criminals.

  275
  We have changed the law to stop suspects abusing the right to silence. The over-emphasis on the use of cautions has been stopped and my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has taken action to reduce the level of offending by those out on bail.
  Mrs. Elizabeth Peacock: My hon. Friend will be aware of the great welcome that has been given in the whole of West Yorkshire, especially in his area and in constituencies such as mine, to the fact that we have at last a tough Home Secretary who is encouraging everyone to be tough on criminals. We all believe that that is the best way forward. My postbag certainly tells me that that is what the great majority of the public in West Yorkshire want.
  Mr. Riddick: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is no surprise that our right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary is the subject of so many attacks from people in the liberal establishment. They know that he is at long last turning the tide and having an effect. We must give him our full support in his battles.
  The new national DNA database is a world first and will prove a formidable extra weapon in the fight against crime. Since 1979, the Government have given the courts powers to hand out tougher sentences to a range of criminals. It is more than two years since a police officer in my constituency told me that he had noticed that the courts were handing out stiffer sentences to criminals in response to the then new Home Secretary's tougher rhetoric. That has undoubtedly played its part in the reduction in crime, because while those who commit burglary and other crimes are in prison, they cannot go about their dastardly deeds at the expense of our constituents.
  More needs to be done, and my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary have my full support for their proposals to toughen up and modernise sentences available to courts. It seems absolutely right that persistent burglars and drug dealers should face stiff minimum prison sentences if they continue offending. I have no doubt that my constituents, unlike some judges, will welcome the proposal that those convicted for a second time of a serious, violent or sexual offence should receive an automatic life sentence. They would then be released only when they no longer posed a risk to the public. I hope that the Government will stand resolute in the face of criticism from the liberal legal establishment.
  However, the Government need to do more in one respect. The lives of many of my constituents are made a misery by the actions of a number of disrespectful, out of control teenagers who commit a range of crimes from petty vandalism to burglary. The police feel powerless to take action and if such people go before the courts, the courts often do very little. Even if the youngsters are sent to local authority secure units, in practice they can walk out almost at will and return to causing mayhem. Something must be done about it. It is time that secure units meant exactly that. The security should be such that youngsters cannot escape from where the courts want them to be.
  When youngsters initially get into trouble, the system should do what it can to ensure that those people do not re-offend, and we should take an understanding approach.
  276
  As we know, 85 per cent. of those who receive a first caution do not come to the attention of the police again. However, we should come down like a ton of bricks on those who offend persistently.
  I have two things to say about the Crown Prosecution Service. First, I find it difficult to understand why it takes so long for the CPS to bring cases to court, and I believe that the police should be allowed to bring straightforward minor offences to court as soon as possible—in some cases, if the defendant pleads guilty, the day after the offence was committed.
  Secondly, I am not happy about certain prosecutions that have been brought against people who have simply been defending themselves against the perpetrators of criminal acts. I can think of one particular incident in my constituency, but I believe that it may be sub judice at the moment, so I would be out of order if I referred to it or mentioned any names. I believe that in such cases the benefit of the doubt should be given to those who are being threatened or attacked.
  I have said nothing about Labour's approach to law and order, because Labour is an irrelevance in the fight against crime, having no concrete proposals of its own. Or at least, Labour would be an irrelevance, were it not for the fact that it aspires to form the next Government. So it is necessary to remind our constituents that Labour failed to support us when we introduced the tough, hard-hitting measures of recent years.
  Labour voted against the Public Order Act 1986 and the Criminal Justice Acts of 1988 and 1991. Labour votes against the renewal of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act every time, and, during the passage of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, Labour refused to support us on several of its key elements. The truth is that Labour is soft on crime, and makes excuses for the causes of crime. As for the Liberals, they usually traipse into the same Lobby as the Labour party.
  In summary, the positive news is that crime in Huddersfield has fallen by 13.4 per cent. over the past two years. Over the year 1995–96, the chief constable will have recruited at least an additional 150 officers for front-line duties. However, there is more still to do. More special constables should be recruited, to increase police presence on the ground. I whole-heartedly support the Home Secretary's tough sentencing proposals, and I want more action to be taken to stop some teenagers intimidating communities.
  I finish by quoting from a letter that I received from a senior police officer in West Yorkshire, which provides a suitably positive note on which to conclude my speech:
  "Overall the force understands that there is still much to be achieved, and that there are many areas in which we will attempt to improve our performance. However the staff are confident, well equipped and relatively well protected for the rigours of the duties they will be forced to undertake."
  10.32 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Timothy Kirkhope): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Riddick) for his excellent and informative speech on the action taking place in West Yorkshire to tackle the problems of crime. I welcome to the debate my hon. Friends

  277
  the Members for Batley and Spen (Mrs. Peacock) and for Keighley (Mr. Waller) and the Government Whip, my silent hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Knapman), who is none the less interested in such matters.
  Because of my connections with West Yorkshire, as well as my Home Office responsibilities in connection with such matters, I am proud to be able to reply to the debate. West Yorkshire deserves our congratulations on its real success in the fight against crime. My hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley has given the House some specific examples of its achievements, and I hope that I shall be able to add to the list.
  My message to West Yorkshire's criminals—for they are entitled to a message from the debate—and indeed, to criminals throughout the country, is that they had better watch out. As a society, we shall simply not tolerate crime, and as a society we can act together to fight it.
  In September last year, my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary—as my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley said, an excellent Home Secretary—was able to announce the biggest fall in recorded crime in our history. Between June 1993 and June 1995, 572,000 fewer crimes were recorded than in the preceding two years. As my hon. Friend said, the West Yorkshire area was no exception. Recorded crime fell there by 6 per cent. in the 12 months to June 1995. Vehicle crime and burglary fell, and crime in the county is now at its lowest level for five years.
  The figures are extremely encouraging, and West Yorkshire police—under its excellent chief constable Keith Hellawell—deserves much credit for them. Of course, crime is still with us and we must not underestimate the misery it brings. For the victims, crime is not simply a statistic or something one reads about or sees on television, it is only too real—and it hurts.
  The police are in the front line in the fight against crime. That is why we have increased spending on West Yorkshire police by such a large amount—98 per cent.—in real terms since we took office. Next year, spending can increase by £11.3 million, or 4.5 per cent. In addition, West Yorkshire police will once again not have to pay for common police services—such as the police national computer—that cost it £2 million in 1994–95. The number of police officers has risen by 383 since 1979, and this year the chief constable has said that he hopes to recruit an extra 135 officers.
  Last year, at Blackpool, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced that we would provide the extra resources to pay for 5,000 more police officers in the next three years. West Yorkshire's share of this additional funding in the first year, 1996–97, will be £800,000. That should be sufficient, as my hon. Friend said, to recruit a great number of extra constables if the chief constable chooses to do so. I am encouraged to hear that he wants to do so. Based on a similar distribution mechanism, the initiative could provide the force with an extra 202 constables after three years.
  There are other ways in which police forces can increase the number of officers on operational duty. My hon. Friend referred to special constables. I should like to take this opportunity to congratulate all of them on the work that they do. I would particularly like to join my hon. Friend in congratulating constable Ian Oxley and all those who work in the West Yorkshire area for the benefit
  278
  of the public and the community. They do a wonderful job, and sensible chief constables are making use of them more and more.
  The pressure to reduce unnecessary paperwork and bureaucracy is being kept up. The Government are pressing forward with the implementation of an efficiency scrutiny on administrative burdens on the police that should produce annual savings of £30 million. Police authorities will also continue to be encouraged to release officers from tasks where their powers and training are not required and which can be undertaken by civilian support staff. Since 1983, 8,300 officers have been released nationwide for operational duty in this way. West Yorkshire police has increased its civilian support staff by 69 per cent. since 1979, totalling 819 civilians. I am sure that West Yorkshire will be examining what other posts can be civilianised to make the sharp end even sharper.
  The Government have also been determined to help police fight crime at a local level. The Police and Magistrates' Courts Act 1994 has given chief officers the freedom to set their own budgets in the light of local priorities. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary now specifies national objectives for the police, but it is up to individual police authorities to set their own local targets to meet the national objectives. In future, police activities will be more clearly focused on the public's priorities. In turn, the public will be kept informed about the service that they can expect and how well their force has performed.
  An excellent practical example of that is the Bradford city challenge, which provided West Yorkshire with £145,000 to put two additional police officers on streets in the Bierley area. Bierley was identified as having a high crime rate, particularly for domestic burglary. The officers are briefed to target certain offenders, advise on crime prevention and improve links with residents. The aim is to cut burglaries by no less than 20 per cent. in the next two years.
  Burglary is one of the crimes that people fear the most. Increasing the number of detections for burglaries and targeting and preventing crimes that are a particular local problem are key objectives that have been set for the police. Throughout the country, police forces have taken action to tackle such crime by, for example, targeting persistent and known criminals.
  In the Toiler lane crime project in Bradford, for example, investigative procedures have been completely revised since January 1994 to create a joint CID and uniform team to tackle local crime problems, especially burglary. The team relies heavily on intelligence from informants and observations to target active criminals and remove them from the community. Detection rates for the team have been significantly higher than average.
  I am sure that my hon. Friends will be aware of last December's Operation Christmas Cracker, in which the West Yorkshire force participated. It was the largest anti-burglary operation that the country has ever seen—12,000 officers from 40 forces in England and Wales took part. In all, 3,327 people were arrested and £1.8 million-worth of stolen property was recovered.
  In West Yorkshire, 143 premises were raided, 105 people were arrested and more than £30,000-worth of property was recovered. I heartily congratulate the police on their success, but they cannot fight crime on their own. Local communities have a central role to play.

  279
  Throughout the country, business, community groups, local authorities and the public are working with the police to reduce and prevent crime in their areas. Local knowledge and expertise is being used to solve local crime problems. The help that my hon. Friend and other hon. Members have given that attack on crime is also well recognised.
  Businesses have helped in many different ways—from offering discounts on home security products to neighbourhood watch members, to direct and often substantial contributions towards the cost of security cameras. In West Yorkshire, for example, representatives from British Gas, the electricity board, the water board, British Telecom and others have formed a working group to deal with the problem of bogus callers.
  My hon. Friend referred to closed circuit television. We welcome the introduction of new technology in the fight against crime. Closed circuit television can help cut crime substantially—it cut overall crime by 40 per cent. in Newport and violent crime by 80 per cent. in Gloucester city centre.
  Chief constables from all over the country have expressed their support for the use of that new technology. The chief constable of Northumbria said:
  "We are leading the world in CCTV technology and its use. In every case where cameras are installed, crime has dropped and the number of arrests increased."
  The truth is that the innocent have nothing to hide; the guilty plenty to fear.
  My hon. Friend alluded to the fact that CCTV systems are operational in Huddersfield town centre and Bradford city centre. There were two successful bids under the CCTV challenge competition 1994–95—Keighley town centre, as my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) knows, and Outwood Grange school, Wakefield.
  We recently announced that £15 million had been made available for a further competition. I hope that local partnerships make every effort to consider how best to use CCTV.
  Mr. Riddick: My hon. Friend mentioned Bradford city challenge. Will he confirm that the Government would be happy for the Huddersfield challenge to devote some of its funds to crime-fighting measures in Huddersfield?
  Mr. Kirkhope: That is an interesting suggestion and I am sure that it will be considered in a positive light.
  280
  I was going to mention a number of other matters, but I think that time will probably prevent me from doing so. I must touch on neighbourhood watch schemes, which are extremely valuable in crime prevention. I know that my hon. Friend agrees.
  Street watch builds on neighbourhood watch. It is becoming an organised and co-ordinated approach that actively uses local knowledge to keep an eye out for crime when walking a chosen route.
  The safer cities programme is helping to cut crime too. The 20 projects under phase I will be followed by a further wave of projects in new areas—32 have so far been selected. The Batley and Bradford safer cities projects have brought together the expertise of the public and private sectors to try to reduce crime.
  I agree that parents have a role to play in preventing crime by teaching their children the difference between right and wrong at an early age. If only all parents behaved responsibly, we would be able to make a real impact on the amount of crime committed by young people.
  We are determined to make the punishment fit the crime. Since taking office, we have given the Attorney-General the right to appeal against lenient sentences, increased the maximum sentence for dealing in hard drugs to life and increased the maximum penalty for cruelty to children from two years to 10 years in prison.
  The Opposition may talk tough all of a sudden, but where are they tonight? The empty Opposition Benches appear to show that they care little about this important subject. They vote soft, too. They opposed each and every one of the measures to punish serious and dangerous criminals to which my hon. Friend referred. When, last October, my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary set out a series of radical sentencing proposals designed to protect the public, Labour did not have a word to say. Our forthcoming White Paper on crime will smoke it out, if I may put it that way, and we shall see where it stands—or at least we hope that we will.
  We have a packed agenda designed to protect ordinary people and uphold the rule of law. We shall support the excellent work carried out by the police and anything that promotes crime prevention and sends a message to the criminal that we shall not allow the lives of ordinary people to be blighted by the fear of crime. My hon. Friend and I share the same resolve, as do the Government as a whole. Curbing crime is our priority in West Yorkshire and, indeed, across the country.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at fourteen minutes to Eleven o'clock.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Departmental Suppliers
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has to ensure that his Department identifies the size of its suppliers by the number of their employees. [15600]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  The Department intends to carry out a survey of its existing suppliers by the end of February and, thereafter, to ask potential new suppliers if they will provide information about the number of employees.

  Wakefield Crown Court
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list the number of occasions on which the former Wakefield Crown court building has been used for(a) judicial and (b) other purposes since its formal closure. [16052]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  The question concerns a specific operational matter on which the chief executive of the Court Service is best placed to provide an answer, and I have accordingly asked the chief executive to reply direct.

  Letter from M. D. Huebner to Mr. David Hinchliffe, dated 20 February 1996:

  The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department has asked me to reply to your Question about Wakefield Crown Court.

  Since its closure on 3 April 1993, the former Wakefield Crown Court has been used by Leeds County Court for judicial sittings on a total of 262 occasions.

  Statutory Instruments
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will cause to be printed on the face of statutory instruments as an addition to the explanatory note the relevant compliance cost assessment where it is no greater than 10 per cent. of the length of the instrument itself. [15580]

  Mr. Roger Freeman
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Government require a compliance cost assessment to accompany all statutory instruments having an impact on business, charities and voluntary organisations when they are presented to Parliament and for the explanatory note to contain a note that an assessment is available and where it can be obtained. I am satisfied that this is sufficient to ensure that compliance cost assessments on statutory instruments are generally available.
  54

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  National Collection of Contemporary Accounts
  Mr. Elletson
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what plans she has to encourage the establishment of a national collection of contemporary accounts on film and tape of people's memories, attitudes and experiences. [16382]

  Mr. Sproat
  This is an important idea. I am taking it forward. I have written to organisations with major holdings of such material to ask what material of this kind currently exists and for their views on the scope for establishing a national collection.

TREASURY

  Inland Revenue
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what obligation the Inland Revenue has to provide taxpayers with(a) a copy of its charter and (b) a copy of its (i) working manual and (ii) other documents describing taxpayers' rights and expectations of service standards with particular reference to the valuation of premises for business rates. [15443]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  The valuation of premises for business rates is carried out by the Valuation Office, an executive agency of the Inland Revenue. It has produced a charter standard statement, copies of which are available free of charge at the reception area in all its offices. In addition, a copy of the charter is sent to all taxpayers at the commencement of correspondence.

  The charter describes taxpayers' rights, sets out the standard of service they can expect and how to complain if they are dissatisfied.

  Working manuals are available to the public under the open government initiative. The Valuation Office has produced a leaflet entitled "Open Government", again freely available, which sets out details of how information can be obtained.

  Divorce
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to the answer of 15 January, column 418, on pension splitting and divorce, if he will set out the basis of his calculation of the cost of pension splitting to unfunded public services schemes in 1997. [11042]

  Mr. Waldegrave
  If pensions were split with the scheme member's ex-spouse taking a transfer value out, this would bring forward pensions benefit costs and reduce future liabilities. The potential net costs to unfunded public service schemes given in the earlier answer relate to this change. They assume splitting of accrued pension rights equally and payment of a transfer value from the scheme at the time of divorce in all new divorce cases involving current, but not former, employees who are members of these schemes. They also assume divorce rates by age derived from information for the three years 1991 to 1993. The figures take no account of administration costs.
  55

  VAT (Domestic fuel)
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his estimate for the winter months this year and last year of(a) income to the Treasury from VAT on domestic fuel and (b) expenditure on cold weather payments. [15375]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  [holding answer 19 February 1996]: Estimated income from VAT on domestic fuel was about £700 million during the period October 1994 to March 1995. The figure for this winter is not yet available.

  So far this winter, 7.3 million cold weather payments totalling more than £62 million have been made.

  Financial Management
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer who is on the working party on financial management; how often it will meet; when its first meeting will be; and what is its remit. [15593]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  The private sector-led group includes representatives of small firms organisations, accountancy bodies, banks and academia. The first meeting was held on 12 February and the group will meet as and when required in order to fulfil its remit. The group is considering whether it can identify ways of improving financial management in small firms.

  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what conclusions his Department has come to with regard to the financial management certificate following the consultation period. [15594]

  Mrs. Knight
  Almost all the respondents were of the view that financial management within small firms was a significant problem, but a majority of small firms' representatives expressed concerns that a financial management certificate could impose an additional burden on small businesses. There was, however, considerable support for the idea of having a working group to look at other solutions to the problem, and this has been set up.

  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish the submissions his Department received on a financial management certificate. [15595]

  Mrs. Knight
  I have arranged for respondents to the consultation document to be contacted for their agreement to the publication of their replies.

  Exports (Cornwall)
  Mr. Hicks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the estimated value of exports by business enterprises located in Cornwall on the basis of figures compiled by Her Majesty's Customs and Excise; and if he will make a statement. [15612]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The location of the business enterprise making an export is not held by Her Majesty's Customs and Excise; only the address registered for VAT purposes is available, which may be at a different location within the UK. Consequently, regional analyses of the trade statistics are not produced, and information relating to the value of exports by business enterprises located in Cornwall is not available.
  56

  Departmental Suppliers
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to ensure that his Department identifies the size of its suppliers by the number of their employees. [15604]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  The Treasury follows the good procurement practice laid down in the White Paper "Setting New Standards", Cm 2840, published in May 1995. The aim should always be to award contracts to the supplier who will provide the best value for money for any purchase.

PRIME MINISTER

  Engagements
  Sir Peter Tapsell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 20 Tuesday. [14735]

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 20 February. [14736]

  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.

  Defence Exports
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will change Her Majesty's Government's policy of not commenting on detailed matters concerning individual defence exports. [14905]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 16 February 1996]: I refer the hon. Member to the statement made in the House by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade on 15 February 1996, Official Report, columns 1139–44.

  Honours Nominations
  Mr. Harris
  To ask the Prime Minister how many nominations for honours have been received in the latest six month period for which figures are available compared with the last six months before the increased publicity was given to the system for public nomination. [16082]

  The Prime Minister
  In the last six months of 1995, 4,316 nominations were received. Statistics for the period leading up to my statement in march 1993 were not kept.

  Departmental Running Costs
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister what were in each year from 1979 to 1994, in real terms,(a) the running costs of his private offices, separately identifying expenditure on staff and (b) the running costs of the Department. [15358]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 15 February 1996]: Information on expenditure by my office is not available on a consistent basis for the years between

  57
  1979–80 and 1985–86. Expenditure since 1986–87, at 1994–95 prices is as follows:

  £ million

  Total expenditure

  Staff costs

  Other costs

  1986–87

  7.471

  2.514

  4.957

  1987–88

  7.744

  2.520

  5.224

  1988–89

  8.780

  2.551

  6.229

  1989–90

  9.603

  2.703

  6.900

  1990–91

  9.536

  2.386

  7.150

  1991–92

  9.454

  2.488

  6.966

  1992–93

  10.344

  3.043

  7.301

  1993–94

  9.395

  3.331

  6.064

  1994–951

  7.671

  3.217

  4.454

  Information on the running costs of the Cabinet Office is given in the annual report of the "Cabinet Office, Privy Council Office and Parliament", a copy of which is available in the Library of the House.

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

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Foreign Diplomats (Expulsion)
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many foreign diplomats have been expelled from the United Kingdom since 1979 for carrying out nuclear technology procurement activities which were incompatible with their status. [15960]

  Mr. Hanley
  There have been no such expulsions of diplomats. However, one diplomatic mission was asked to terminate the functions of two locally-engaged members of staff for carrying out nuclear technology procurement activities. A further individual, a diplomat, was excluded from the UK. Since 1979, a total of 66 diplomats have been expelled from the UK.

  Jonathon Moyle
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Leyton (Mr. Cohen) of 21 November,Official Report, column 69, what further developments have occurred in respect of the inquiry into the death of Jonathon Moyle. [15964]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  The investigation by the Chilean authorities into the death of Mr. Moyle is continuing.

  The inquest being conducted by HM coroner for Exeter and East Devon has not been finalised.

  Consultants
  Ms Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will indicate the size and the purpose of each contract between the diplomatic wing and management consultants for the year 1994–95 referred to in his answer to the hon. Member for 58
  Darlington (Mr. Milburn) of 12 July 1995, Official Report, column 590. [15093]

  Mr. Hanley
  [holding answer 19 February 1996]: In the answer to the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn) of 12 July 1995, there was a printing error which distorted the figures. A correction was issued on 17 July 1995.

  The total cost of contracts with management consultants for the year 1994–95 was £76,887.

  The table sets out the size and purpose of each contract.

  1. Consultancy support for running and assessing new recruitment campaigns for executive assistants and grade 9s: £7,000.

  2. Assistance in drawing up and issuing the new Code of Management: £15,500.

  3. A review of Science and Technology work overseas (a joint exercise with the Department for Trade and Industry): £7,000.

  4. Consultancy support to Internal Audit Unit to achieve BSI accreditation to BS5750: £11,500.

  5 Review of Overseas Inspectorate for possible BSI accreditation to BS5750: £500.

  6. Revision of Diplomatic Service Procedure: £6,000.

  7. Annual assessment fees for BSI accreditation to BS5750 for Management Review Staff (Internal Consultancy service): £900.

  8. Consultancy support for an FCO Quality system: £2,000.

  9. Review of the training requirements of the Management Review Staff: £2,500.

  10. Consultancy support for interdepartmental benchmarking of the procurement of stationery and travel services: £5,000.

  11. Consultancy support for Market testing of the Home Security Services: £11,500.

  12. Presentation on contract management to the FCO Procurement unit: £300.

  14. Consultancy support for business unit development in the Diplomatic Service Language Centre: £7,000.

  Korean Peninsula
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is Her Majesty's Government's policy in respect of the unification of the Korean peninsular; and if he will make a statement. [15680]

  Mr. Hanley
  The reunification of the Korean peninsula can be achieved only through meaningful dialogue between North and South Korea. We encourage such dialogue at every opportunity.

  Iraq
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list those items destroyed to date by the UN-supervised programme in Iraq, in accordance with UN Security Council resolution 687 which contained technology originating in the United Kingdom. [15996]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  The United Nations Special Commission and the International Atomic Energy Agency have reported on items destroyed from time to time in their periodic reports to the Security Council, copies of which have been placed in the Library of the House, but they do not release information on the origin of those items.
  59

ENVIRONMENT

  Construction Skills Certification Scheme
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what has been the total cost incurred to date on the construction skills certification scheme including(a) the setting-up costs, (b) advertising and promotional expenditure and (c) day-to-day administrative costs; [15391]

  (2) how many operatives have to date registered under the construction skills certification scheme; and what percentage this represents of all those employed in the construction industry and eligible to register. [15392]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  Although my Department supports the objectives of the scheme, it has no responsibility for its administration or costs.

  Housing Statistics
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will now provide figures for 1994 equivalent to those provided in respect of 1991 and 1993 in his answer of 19 July 1995,Official Report, columns 1414–16. [15389]

  Mr. Curry
  Estimates for numbers and proportions of owner-occupiers by age and household type in England in 1994–95 are now available and are given in the table. They are on a consistent basis with the earlier figures and exclude households which entered owner-occupation through purchase as a sitting tenant from a local authority.

  The proportions are drawn from the survey of English housing and are subject to sampling variability, as is the number of owner-occupiers based on them. Sampling variability is especially high for groups where the number of households are small and this is likely to cause some of the variation between age groups. These comments apply also to the figures for 1993–94 given in the earlier answer.

  All households, and owner-occupiers excluding those who entered owner occupation by purchase as a sitting tenant from a local authority, by household type and age of head of household 1994–95

  England

  Total households1

  Owner occupiers

  Thousands

  Thousands2

  Percentages3

  Married couple

  Under 25

  165

  88

  53

  25 to 29

  646

  472

  73

  30 to 34

  1,047

  792

  76

  35 to 39

  1,110

  837

  75

  40 to 44

  1,128

  859

  76

  45 to 49

  1,265

  980

  77

  50 to 54

  1,027

  770

  75

  55 and over

  4,031

  2,744

  68

  Total

  10,421

  7,546

  72

  Cohabiting couple

  Under 25

  232

  91

  39

  25 to 29

  332

  206

  62

  30 to 34

  257

  163

  63

  35 to 39

  158

  93

  58

  40 to 44

  113

  77

  68

  60

  All households, and owner-occupiers excluding those who entered owner occupation by purchase as a sitting tenant from a local authority, by household type and age of head of household 1994–95

  England

  Total households1

  Owner occupiers

  Thousands

  Thousands2

  Percentages3

  45 to 49

  92

  59

  65

  50 to 54

  53

  30

  56

  55 and over

  94

  53

  56

  Total

  1,332

  781

  59

  Lone parent with dependent children

  Under 25

  135

  4

  3

  25 to 29

  209

  23

  11

  30 to 34

  226

  66

  29

  35 to 39

  190

  67

  35

  40 to 44

  150

  67

  45

  45 to 49

  105

  60

  57

  50 to 54

  40

  24

  59

  55 and over

  23

  7

  30

  Total

  1,076

  314

  29

  Other multi-person

  Under 25

  95

  13

  14

  25 to 29

  142

  43

  30

  30 to 34

  109

  61

  56

  35 to 39

  79

  47

  59

  40 to 44

  98

  50

  51

  45 to 49

  136

  77

  57

  50 to 54

  130

  57

  44

  55 and over

  666

  339

  51

  Total

  1,455

  654

  45

  One person

  Under 25

  220

  48

  22

  25 to 29

  436

  243

  56

  30 to 34

  414

  273

  66

  35 to 39

  290

  180

  62

  40 to 44

  261

  142

  54

  45 to 49

  294

  152

  52

  50 to 54

  275

  139

  50

  55 and over

  3,346

  1,527

  46

  Total

  5,536

  2,690

  49

  Source:

  1 DOE household estimates.

  2 Derived by applying proportions from the 1994–95 survey of English housing (as in column 3 but before rounding) to the household numbers given in column 1.

  3 Survey of English housing 1994–95.

  Water Companies (Surplus Land)
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what was the valuation of potential surplus land in respect of each water company at the time of privatisation; [15289]

  (2) what assumed proceeds, from the disposal of surplus land, were taken into account when original price limits were set in respect of each water company. [15290]

  Mr. Clappison
  Details for individual companies are commercially confidential. However, the total assumed proceeds which were included in the initial K setting process were some £300 million.

  Mrs. Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what were the actual proceeds, by water company, from the disposal of surplus land which were notified to the Director General of Water Services at the time of the 1994 periodic review. [15291]
  61
  Mr. Clappison
  Details for individual companies are commercially confidential. However, the actual proceeds taken into account in the periodic review were some £96 million less than that assumed in the initial K setting process.

  Mr. Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will list by water company those disposals of surplus land for which approval has been sought under licence condition K of their instrument of appointment since 1992 which have had a value exceeding(a) £500,000, (b) £1 million and (c) £2 million or more; [15288]

  (2) if he will list, by water company, the number of transfers of land to associated companies for which approval has been sought under licence condition K since 1992 which have had a value (a) less than £500,000,(b) between £500,000 and £1 million, (c) over £1 million and (d) £2 million or more. [15292]

  Mr. Clappison
  This is a matter for the Director General of Water Services. Details of disposals by customer service committee area are published each year in the Director General of Water Services' annual report, copies of which are held in the Library of the House.

  Pollution (Incinerators)
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy to require Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution to publish the levels of(a) chlorine and (b) dioxin emissions from all incinerators. [15654]

  Mr. Clappison
  All incinerators under the control of Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution—HMIP—are required to meet emission limits for hydrochloric acid and dioxins from 1 December 1996. Monitoring results supplied to HMIP are normally placed on public registers. Monitoring information already obtained for dioxin emissions from municipal waste incinerators was published by HMIP on 25 September 1995.

  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what research his Department is conducting into the emissions of(a) dioxins and (b) chlorine from incinerators; and at what cost. [15656]

  Mr. Clappison
  Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution has funded a review of dioxin emissions to air, including those from incinerators, at a cost of £65,000 plus VAT. The resulting report was published on 25 September 1995, and placed in the House of Commons Library.

  HMIP has recently commissioned further research, at a cost of &£43,500 plus VAT, on dioxin releases to water and land. This work will cover industrial sources, including incinerators, and non-industrial sources, and is expected to be completed during the last quarter of 1996.

  Rents
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the average rent in(a) privately rented, (b) housing association and council dwellings in (i) Leicester, (ii) Bradford, (iii) Normanton, (iv) Christchurch, (v) Birmingham, (vi) Sheffield, (vii) Stockport, (viii) Basildon, (ix) Leicestershire, (x) Southport, (xi) Norfolk,
  62
  (xii) Chester, (xiii) Cirencester and Tewkesbury, (xiv) Swindon, (xv) Skipton and Ripon, (xvi) Blackpool, (xvii) Gloucester, (xviii) Cardiff and (xix) Scarborough. [15619]

  Mr. Clappison
  Average weekly local authority and housing association rents at March 1994, the latest date for which figures are available for local authorities and housing associations, are in the table. Figures are available only for local authority districts or groups of districts, e.g., counties, regions, etc.

  £ per week

  Local authority1

  Housing association2

  Leicester

  29.16

  34.03

  Bradford

  29.04

  33.01

  Christchurch

  not applicable

  38.96

  Birmingham

  33.52

  34.01

  Sheffield

  26.55

  37.53

  Stockport

  26.54

  34.93

  Basildon

  35.66

  40.35

  Leicestershire

  28.55

  35.56

  Norfolk

  29.88

  39.19

  Chester

  25.44

  40.80

  Cotswold (Cirencester)

  39.70

  38.74

  Tewkesbury

  33.67

  39.58

  Thamesdown (Swindon)

  30.54

  38.73

  Craven (Skipton)

  31.92

  37.61

  Blackpool

  28.35

  36.48

  Gloucester

  37.83

  40.92

  Scarborough

  29.75

  39.72

  Sources:

  1 Local authorities—housing subsidy claim forms.

  2 Housing associations—HAR10/1 (not grossed for missing data).

  Note:

  The average rent figures are not directly comparable as they take no account of differences in the composition of stock. e.g., size and type of dwellings, their age and condition.

  Figures for average private sector rents are available only from sample surveys that are not large enough to produce reliable figures for individual local authorities.

  For information about Cardiff, I refer the hon. Member to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Hydrochlorofluorocarbons
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are his targets for phasing out HCFCs over the next 25 years. [15653]

  Mr. Clappison
  The Government's targets for phasing out the consumption of HCFCs—production plus imports minus exports—reflect the requirements of EC regulation 3093/94 on substances that deplete the ozone layer. HCFC consumption in the EU was frozen, by 1 January 1995, at 2.6 per cent. of CFC consumption plus total HCFC consumption in 1989. Thereafter, HCFC consumption will be reduced from this amount as follows:

  by 2004: 35 per cent. Reduction

  by 2007: 60 per cent. reduction

  by 2010: 80 per cent. reduction

  by 2013: 95 per cent. reduction

  by 2015: phaseout

  63
  The regulation also contains controls on the use of HCFCs which will ensure that they are used only in applications where they or CFCs have been used previously and where there is no acceptable alternative.

  Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what estimates have been made of the costs to the environment(a) by way of reduced thermal efficiency of heating systems and (b) in respect of pollution levels arising from the withdrawal of the home energy efficiency grant scheme. [15447]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  We remain committed to the home energy efficiency scheme—HEES—which will continue to help make the homes of people in the greatest need warmer and more energy efficient. Grants are towards the cost of basic energy efficiency measures, and so do not affect the thermal efficiency of heating systems. Reduced fuel consumption, and thus lower carbon emissions, are among the benefits of the scheme.

  Local Government Reorganisation, Devon
  Mr. Allason
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment on what date he now plans to lay the orders for the reorganisation of local government in Devon. [15555]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment to the hon. Member for Hereford (Sir C. Shepherd) on 13 February,Official Report, column 482–83.

  Methyl Bromide
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the levels of production of methyl bromide in each year since 1991. [15652]

  Mr. Clappison
  The UK does not produce methyl bromide.

  The United Nations environment programme has estimated that, in 1992, global sales of methyl bromide were about 75,625 tonnes.

  Pond Protection Orders
  Mr. Chris Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received from organisations seeking legislation to introduce pond protection orders to assist the conservation of ponds as wildlife habitats; and if he will make a statement. [15435]

  Mr. Clappison
  I understand that my Department has received one representation in recent years.

  Ponds have an important part to play as a habitat for wildlife. A survey published in 1994 showed that the number of ponds in Great Britain declined between 1984 and 1990, but that there was some evidence of new ponds being created more recently for farming and wildlife reasons. My Department is commissioning further research to look at more recent trends and to make a qualitative assessment of the national pond resource. The results should be available next year.
  64

  Environment Agency
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to undertake a compliance cost assessment for the establishment of the new United Kingdom Environment Agency. [15587]

  Mr. Clappison
  [holding answer 19 February 1996]: A compliance cost assessment for the establishment of the new environment agencies was prepared for the Environment Bill in 1995, as explained in the explanatory and financial memorandum to the Bill. I have today sent a copy of the assessment to the hon. Member.

  Areas of Special Scientific Interest
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer of 13 February,Official Report, when the consultation process will (a) begin and (b) end. [16038]

  Mr. Clappison
  The Wildlife Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman) contains provision to extend the powers of the court to make restoration orders. It would not be appropriate for the Government to carry out consultations on their own proposals while the Bill is before Parliament.

  Small and Medium Enterprises
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what meetings his Department has had with organisations representing small firms since May 1995 to review the scope for simplifying the tendering procedure. [15683]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  My Department was represented at a meeting chaired by Treasury with small firm representatives on 27 November 1995, which explored the scope for simplification.

  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what has been the outcome of his Department's review of measures taken to facilitate small firms' access to appropriate areas of Government procurement. [15684]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  My Department's new computerised procurement order system will be used to identify suppliers by size as part of the supplier base analysis programme promoted by the White Paper "Setting New Standards". The Department's new procurement guide will also highlight its support for the DTI policy on promoting the use of small and medium enterprises.

  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what actions his Department has taken to improve awareness amongst procurement staff of the potential benefits and pitfalls of purchasing from small and medium-sized enterprises. [15682]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  My Department has published details on the perceived advantages of using small firms in its purchasing guide, which has been issued to all its main procurement branches.

  A representative of the Department of Trade and Industry small firms unit has also recently given a presentation on small and medium enterprises to DoE procurement staff.
  65
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress his Department has made regarding establishing a contact point with responsibility for liaison with relevant business support organisations and taking forward SME-related public procurement initiatives. [15640]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  This Department's contact point is identified in the DTI booklet "Tendering for Government Contracts".

  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what work his Department has done to develop best practice on publication of departmental procurement guidance material relevant to small and medium-sized enterprise needs. [15681]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The DTI booklet "Think Big, Buy Small" has been advertised in procurement circulars which are distributed throughout my Department.

  Members of my Department's procurement staff also recently took part in the filming of a forthcoming DTI video, which will promote the small firms initiative.

  Departmental Suppliers
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to ensure that his Department identifies the size of its suppliers by the number of their employees. [15597]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  This Department is developing an IT procurement order processing system with reporting packages that will be the basis of fuller management information on all its suppliers. That system will be available from this autumn.

  Regulatory Bodies
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list each regulatory body for which he is responsible indicating for each the percentage of business people on the board. [15740]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  My right hon. Friend currently appoints board members to three regulatory bodies: the Health and Safety Commission, the National Rivers Authority and the Environment Agency.

  The Health and Safety at Work etc., Act 1974 states that the Health and Safety Commission shall consist of a chairman and not less than six, and not more than nine, members, and that as to three of those members—30 per cent. of the full board—the Secretary of State shall consult organisations representing employers. The board is currently at full strength.

  Some 58 per cent. of the present members of the National Rivers Authority and 50 per cent. of the present members of the Environment Agency have past or present business interests, but they have been appointed in a personal capacity and not to represent those interests. The National Rivers Authority will cease operations on 31 March 1996.

  My right hon. Friend also appoints the Director General of Water Services. He is supported by the Office of Water Services, a non-ministerial Government Department which does not have an appointed board.
  66

  Thames Water
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if the Thames groundwater pumping scheme was included in the privatisation of Thames Water. [15874]

  Mr. Clappison
  The former Thames water authority's west Berkshire groundwater scheme, which includes assets such as pumping stations was transferred from the authority to the National Rivers Authority in accordance with an agreement made under schedule 2 to the Water Act 1989, which was approved by my right hon. Friend the then Secretary of State for the Environment on 31 August 1989.

  Private Sector Housing
  Mr. Peter Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what financial support will be available towards local housing authorities' expenditure on private sector housing renewal following enactment of the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Bill. [16385]

  Mr. Curry
  Clauses 91 and 134 of the Bill authorise the Secretary of State to make contributions to local housing authorities towards expenditure incurred by them under part I and clause 127 of the Bill.

  Resources will continue to be distributed to local housing authorities in England as part of their annual housing investment programme allocation. However, from 1 April 1997, the allocations for private sector renewal and disabled facilities grants will be made as two separate allocations.

  Disabled facilities grants will continue to be supported through specified capital grant to reimburse 60 per cent. actual eligible expenditure. A guideline allocation will be notified to local authorities and a supplementary credit approval up to the guideline allocation will also be provided.

  All other expenditure under these provisions will be supported by a specific capital grant to reimburse 60 per cent. of expenditure up to a cash limit notified to each authority.

  The Exchequer support for eligible expenditure incurred up to 31 March 1997 will be paid under the present arrangements.

  English Nature
  Mr. Peter Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement about the current financial, management and policy review of English nature. [16386]

  Mr. Clappison
  In response to the Government's requirement that all executive agencies and non-departmental public bodies be subjected to regular and detailed scrutiny at least every five years, my Department is conducting a financial management and policy review of English Nature.

  The review will draw on work which has already been done on the study into the possible merger between English Nature and the Countryside Commission, the results of which were announced by my right hon. Friend

  67
  the Secretary of State on 7 October 1994. The current review will encompass English Nature's organisation and structure; general and financial management; and systems of financial control. The scope for further contractorisation of English Nature's work will be specifically addressed by the review.

  The review is due to be completed by mid-June 1996.

  Protection Advisory Committees
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the Environment Agency's proposals for the membership of its regional environment protection advisory committees. [16387]

  Mr. Clappison
  The agency has submitted, under section 12 of the Environment Act 1995, membership schemes for its regional environment protection advisory committees in England. At the same time, it has brought the schemes to the attention of persons likely to be interested in them, who may make representations or objections about the schemes to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment by 4 March. Any representations and objections received will be taken into account before a decision is taken on whether to approve the schemes.

  The agency has also submitted a scheme for its Welsh region to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

  Copies of the schemes have been placed in the Library of the House. The schemes include descriptions of bodies or persons with an interest in the agency's activities. Once schemes are approved, individual appointments are made by the agency itself after consultation.

  Environmental Statistics
  Sir Donald Thompson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are his policies for publishing environmental statistics. [16455]

  Mr. Gummer
  My Department publishes a wide range of environmental statistics every year, primarily in the annual "Digest of Environmental Statistics", the next edition of which is to be published in May. This is to be supplemented in 1996 by a new booklet giving key facts in graphical and tabular form, which we hope will be particularly useful for those wanting a pocket-sized summary and for schools. Key information from the digest is also to be made available through the Internet for the first time later this year.

  A more limited set of statistical information was given in the "Sustainable Development Strategy", published in 1994. It is planned that this will be updated in 1997, five years on from the earth summit held in Rio de Janeiro in 1992. In the meantime, the Government continue to publish annual White Papers reporting progress with the strategy. The next is due in March this year.

  A new report, presenting a preliminary set of "Indicators of Sustainable Development for the United Kingdom" will also be published in March. This follows a commitment given in the "Sustainable Development Strategy" to publish a set of indicators within two years. The United Kingdom will, we believe, be one of the first countries in the world to publish such indicators. The
  68
  indicators will be the subject of consultation and development, and will be updated on a regular basis, probably every two years.

  The new Environment Agency is to publish early in April 1996 a summary of the state of the environment in England and Wales. This will be made available through the Internet.

  In addition to the more technical "Digest of Environmental Statistics", my Department also published, in 1992, the first edition of a compendium statistical report "The UK Environment", aimed at schools and colleges. This was successful and we had planned to update it in 1997. However, in view of the wide range of statistical publications planned in the next few years which I have described, I have decided that it would be better to devote our resources to producing a special edition of "UK Environment" in 1999 to mark the beginning of the new millennium. My Department will discuss with the environment agencies what contribution they might make to the preparation of this report.

SCOTLAND

  Electro-convulsive Therapy
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proposals the Mental Welfare Commission has made to him for changing the conditions under which electro-convulsive therapy is administered. [15420]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  My right hon. Friend has received no such proposals from the Mental Welfare Commission for Scotland.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has for changes in the law about the control of electro-convulsive therapy treatment. [15421]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 19 February 1996]: My right hon. Friend has no immediate plans to change the law relating to electro-convulsive therapy. Consideration is, however, being given to the report of the Scottish Law Commission on incapable adults, which covers this subject.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received regarding the desirability of two doctors being required to authorise electro-convulsive therapy treatment. [15418]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 19 February 1996]: My right hon. Friend has received a number of representations from members of the public, local authorities and Members of Parliament that a second medical opinion should be obtained in any case where electro-convulsive therapy is proposed as part of a patient's treatment plan.

  The report from the Scottish Law Commission on incapable adults, which we are presently considering, also bears on this subject.

  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what procedures are followed where a change is made to the conditions under which electro-convulsive therapy treatment is administered in Scottish hospitals. [15419]
  69
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 19 February 1996]: In such circumstances, guidance would normally be issued by the Scottish Office.

  Departmental Suppliers
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to ensure that his Department identifies the size of its suppliers by the number of their employees. [15609]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  From 1 April 1996 the Scottish Office intends to record this information on its computer payment system. This facility is not available at present, but information is currently being recorded in preparation for the system becoming operational.

  Regulatory Bodies
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list each regulatory agency for which he is responsible indicating for each the percentage of business people on the board. [15734]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Scottish Fisheries Protection Agency and the Scottish Agricultural Science Agency are two of my right hon. Friend's executive agencies which carry out regulatory activities on his behalf. Neither agency has any non-executive directors.

  Among the non-departmental public bodies for which my right hon. Friend is responsible, the Scottish Environment Protection Agency, which becomes fully operational from 1 April 1996, has regulatory functions relating to environmental protection and Scottish Natural Heritage has powers in relation to the protection of Scotland's natural heritage. Of the 12 board members of SEPA, three are from the business sector and one from the farming sector. Of the 12 board members of SNH, four represent the farming sector and one manages a zoological park.

  Scottish Schools Equipment and Research Centre
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to close down the Scottish Schools Equipment and Research Centre. [16051]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  None.

  Hepatitis C
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many patients in Scotland have contracted hepatitis C virus as a result of NHS blood or plasma transfusions. [16087]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  A UK-wide "look back" exercise was announced in January 1995 with a view to tracing, counselling and, where appropriate, treating those who may have been exposed to the hepatitis C virus through blood donated before the introduction of testing in September 1991. The best current estimate is that there are around 350 individuals in Scotland infected in this way. It is not possible to give a more precise figure until work on this complex exercise has been completed.
  70

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his estimate of his Department's expenditure on newspapers and magazines in(a) 1993–94, (b) 1994–95 and (c) 1995–96, to date; and if he will list the publications purchased for the latest year for which information is available. [11412]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 30 Janaury 1996]: Details of the total cost of newspapers and magazines purchased by the Scottish Office library and information service are as follows:

  1993–94: £186,461

  1994–95: £186,210

  1995–96: £109,497 (to end January)

  The Department purchaser or obtains free of charge a wide range of newspapers and periodical publications. A list of their titles has been placed in the Library of the House.

WALES

  Regulatory Bodies
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list each regulatory body for which he is responsible indicating for each the percentage of business people on the board. [15733]

  Mr. Hague
  One appointment is made to the board of the Environment Agency which does not assume executive functions until 1 April 1996. That person's occupation is shown as retired.

  New Dwellings
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if he will list the total number of dwellings completed by(a) local authorities, (b) housing associations, (c) development corporations and (d) other public authorities, in each local authority area in Wales in each year since 1979; [15070]

  (2) if he will list the total number of dwellings started by (a) local authorities, (b) housing associations, (c) development corporations and (d) other public authorities, in each local authority area in Wales in each year since 1979. [15069]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  In view of the large number of statistics requested, I shall place a copy of the relevant tables in the Library of the House.

  Arable Area Payments Scheme
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many payments were made in Wales in 1994–95 under the arable area payments scheme of between(a) £0 and £5,000, (b) £5,001 and £10,000, (c) £10,001 and £15,000, (d) £15,001 and £20,000, (e) £20,001 and £25,000 (f) £25,001 and £50,000, (g) £50,001 and £75,000, (h) £75,001 and £100,000, (i) £100,001 and £150,000 and (j) £150,001 and over. [15323]
  71
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The information requested is as follows:

  Payment band

  Number of payments

  £0–£5,000

  2,088

  £5,001–£10,000

  144

  £10,001–£15,000

  79

  £15,001–£20,000

  21

  £20,001–£25,000

  32

  £25,001–£50,000

  4

  £50,001–£75,000

  1

  £75,001–£100,000

  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many payments he expects to be made in Wales in 1995–96 under the arable area payments scheme of between(a) £0 and £5,000, (b) £5,001 and £10,000, (c) £10,001 and £15,000, (d) £15,001 and £20,000, (e) £20,001 and £25,000, (f) £25,001 and £50,000, (g) £50,001 and £75,000, (h) £75,001 and £100,000, (i) £100,001 and £150,000, (j) £150,001 and £200,000, (k) £200,001 and £250,000 and (l) £250,001 and over. [15324]

  Mr. Jones
  Figures for 1995–96 are not yet available, but I do not expect the number and distribution of payments to change significantly from 1994–95.

  Set-aside Payments
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many payments(a) were made in Wales in 1994–95 and (b) he expects to be made on 1995–96 for set-aside between (i) £0 and £5,000 (ii) £5,001 and £10,000, (iii) £10,001 and £15,000, (iv) £15,001 and £20,000, (v) £20,001 and £25,000 and (vi) over £25,001. [15339]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The information requested is as follows:

  Number of payments

  Payment band

  1994–95

  1995–96 (Estimate)

  £0–£5,000

  331

  342

  £5,001–£10,000

  32

  44

  £10,001–£15,000

  6

  10

  £15,001–£20,000

  3

  1

  £20,001–£25,000

  1

  1

  £25,000+

  0

  1

  Nature Reserve, River Usk
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the policy of the European Commission in respect of the proposed nature reserve site east of the River Usk. [15576]

  Mr. Hague
  In relation to the loss of the Cardiff bay site of special scientific interest, the European Commission has accepted that the proposed Uskmouth-Goldcliff nature reserve will provide measures, which in addition to management plans for 31 estuaries in the United Kingdom, meet the requirements of article 6(4) of directive 79/0409/EEC on the protection of birds.
  72
  Mr. Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if the intended management agreements on the proposed nature reserve east of the River Usk are binding in perpetuity in the event of future transfers of ownership. [15574]

  Mr. Hague
  The Land Authority for Wales will secure any management agreements in accordance with the Perpetuities and Accumulations Act 1964, and such agreements will be registered and binding on the present owners and successors in title.

  Departmental Suppliers
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to ensure that his Department identifies the size of its suppliers by the number of their employees. [15602]

  Mr. Hague
  My Department already requests that suppliers identify their number of employees on submission of their tenders.

  South and East Wales Ambulance NHS Trust
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will set up an independent inquiry into the accounts, financial viability and geographical boundaries of the South and East Wales Ambulance NHS trust. [16194]

  Mr. Hague
  No.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the resignation of the chairman of the South and East Wales Ambulance NHS trust with effect from 15 February; and what the current financial position is as regards its contracts with(a) Powys health authority, (b) South Glamorgan health authority and (c) Gwent health authority. [16195]

  Mr. Hague
  A copy of the announcement I made on the 15 February has been placed in the Library of the House. Contracts between the trust and its purchasers are a matter for them.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Unit Labour Costs
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the change in unit labour costs for each year since 1979 in(a) the United Kingdom, (b) the United States of America, (c) Japan, (d) Germany, (e) France, (f) Italy, (g) the Netherlands and (h) Sweden. [11820]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The information requested is shown in the table.

  The figures are affected by short-term exchange rate movements which can bear no relation to the strength of economic fundamentals.
  73

  Percentage change in unit labour costs in manufacturing industry since 1979 (in US$)

  Year

  United Kingdom

  United States of America

  Japan

  Germany

  France

  Italy

  Netherlands

  Sweden

  1979

  30.5

  11.2

  -5.8

  12.5

  14.5

  13.0

  10.2

  5.4

  1980

  33.6

  14.4

  -0.9

  11.4

  15.5

  8.8

  5.3

  10.9

  1981

  -3.9

  6.0

  5.0

  -16.0

  -12.7

  -11.3

  -18.8

  -7.7

  1982

  -9.8

  5.2

  -11.7

  -1.7

  -8.3

  -3.1

  -2.9

  -16.5

  1983

  -13.7

  0.5

  5.0

  -5.2

  -6.9

  -0.9

  -8.2

  -15.5

  1984

  -9.7

  1.9

  -2.0

  -9.1

  -6.9

  -9.7

  -15.9

  -3.9

  1985

  2.4

  1.8

  -2.7

  -1.7

  1.5

  -2.2

  -2.1

  4.4

  1986

  18.2

  1.5

  51.3

  40.3

  33.0

  31.9

  38.6

  28.3

  1987

  17.4

  -4.0

  10.1

  28.0

  17.4

  18.1

  23.9

  17.5

  1988

  9.8

  1.6

  8.5

  2.6

  -2.0

  1.2

  0.0

  8.6

  1989

  -2.7

  3.4

  -7.8

  -5.2

  -6.3

  1.2

  -9.3

  1.9

  1990

  11.2

  3.5

  -4.4

  19.5

  21.2

  22.5

  18.0

  18.4

  1991

  5.4

  3.0

  8.3

  0.2

  0.3

  3.5

  1.0

  5.7

  1992

  5.0

  2.0

  11.1

  13.5

  7.9

  2.9

  11.9

  3.2

  1993

  -12.8

  0.1

  16.9

  -0.2

  -4.5

  -21.0

  -3.8

  -30.9

  Source:

  Prepared by United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Office of Productivity and Technology for 'Comparative manufacturing productivity and unit labour costs'

  Monthly Labour Review, February 1995.

  Exports
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will supply information about British exports to(a) Portugal, (b) Thailand, (c) Greece, (d)

  Value of United Kingdom visible exports

  £ million, current prices

  Portugal

  Thailand

  Greece

  Cyprus

  Singapore

  Section/Description

  1971–80

  1981–90

  1971–80

  1981–90

  1971–80

  1981–90

  1971–80

  1981–90

  1971–80

  1981–90

  0 Food and live animals

  57.7

  160.4

  25.2

  62.7

  55.2

  197.1

  55.5

  178.3

  49.2

  137.2

  1 Beverages and tobacco

  21.6

  147.3

  10.5

  176.1

  44.8

  311.5

  32.3

  78.6

  49.5

  338.7

  2 Crude materials, inedible, except fuels

  87.7

  220.8

  4.7

  25.8

  75.6

  142.3

  3.7

  11.3

  4.8

  36.6

  3 Mineral fuels, lubricants and related materials

  120.8

  694.2

  4.0

  10.7

  36.1

  225.9

  8.5

  20.5

  13.6

  39.6

  4 Animal and vegetable oils, fats and waxes

  3.1

  2.6

  1.0

  1.0

  1.1

  1.7

  0.6

  1.3

  2.7

  3.3

  5 Chemicals and related products not elsewhere specified

  294.4

  864.5

  122.5

  461.9

  187.8

  671.3

  55.8

  174.8

  280.8

  976.0

  6 Manufactured goods classified chiefly by material

  431.6

  806.2

  80.7

  292.5

  289.7

  867.2

  134.8

  305.9

  275.8

  889.0

  7 Machinery and transport equipment

  1,041.5

  2,575.8

  283.7

  920.5

  748.9

  1,524.4

  335.1

  473.6

  883.8

  2,562.1

  8 Miscellaneous manufactured articles

  133.1

  424.4

  33.0

  109.2

  94.2

  460.6

  54.2

  188.1

  165.8

  823.9

  9 Commodities and transactions not elsewhere classified

  21.2

  53.3

  24.4

  64.1

  21.0

  58.7

  22.1

  40.3

  60.1

  190.5

  Totals

  2,212.8

  5,949.5

  621.8

  2,124.5

  1,554.4

  4,460.6

  702.5

  1,472.7

  1,786.0

  5,996.9

  Source:

  Overseas Trade Statistics of the United Kingdom.

  Food and Drink Industry
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade (1) what was the contribution of food and drink wholesale and retail distribution to the gross domestic product of the United Kingdom in 1995(a) in cash and (b) as a percentage of gross domestic product; [15327]

  (2) what was the contribution of the food and drink industry in total to the gross domestic product of the United Kingdom in 1995 (a) in cash and (b) as a percentage of gross domestic product; [15325]
  74
  Cyprus and (e) Singapore in the same form as that given in his answer of 14 June 1994, Official Report, column 419. [15178]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The information is provided in the table.

  (3) what was the contribution of catering to the gross domestic product of the United Kingdom in 1995 (a) in cash and (b) as a percentage of gross domestic product. [15328]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The detailed information required to answer these questions is compiled only every five years. Latest available information is for 1990 and is published in the United Kingdom national accounts Central Statistical Office methodological paper No.1
  75
  "The measurement of output in the estimation of GDP", which is available in the Library of the House. Data for 1995 are not expected to be available before 1998.

  Dr. Strang
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what was the contribution of food and drink manufacturing to the gross domestic product of the United kingdom in 1995(a) in cash and (b) as a percentage of gross domestic product. [15326]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The latest available information is for 1994 and shows the contribution to GDP by food and drink manufacturing to be £16,749 million, 2.9 per cent. of total GDP. Information for 1995 will not be available until August 1996. It will be published in table 2.3 of the United Kingdom national accounts "The Blue Book", which is available in the Library of the House.

  Regulatory Bodies
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list each regulatory body for which he is responsible indicating for each the percentage of business people on the board. [15741]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The Office of Fair Trading, Office of Electricity Regulation, Office of Gas Supply and Office of Telecommunications are independent non-ministerial Government Departments. Statute creates the posts of director general and provides for him/her to have an office. There are no boards of management.

  Regional Selective Assistance
  Mr. Robert Ainsworth
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 6 February,Official Report, columns 141–44, if he will list in each case (a) the value of the offer and (b) the name of the firm and the constituency in which it is located. [15626]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  Information on accepted offers of regional selective assistance, over £75,000, is published in "Labour Market Trends", formerly the "Employment Gazette". This is given on the basis of travel-to-work areas.

  Iraq (Military Equipment)
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what investigation has been carried out by his Department's export control organisation into the sale of equipment and technology to Iraq by the Astra company since 1985. [15965]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The activities of Astra, insofar as they relate to the sale of equipment and technology to Iraq since 1985, are covered in Sir Richard Scott's report. The Trade and Industry Committee is examining the DTI's role in granting export licences to BMARC, a subsidiary of Astra Holdings plc from May 1988, for the export of naval guns to Singapore. BMARC was known as Astra Defence Systems Ltd. between June 1989 and April 1991. My Department has carried out investigations in order to assist both these inquiries.

  Economic Statistics
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what are the last figures for(a) United Kingdom and (b) EU average (i) inflation, (ii) industrial production and (iii) trade outside the EU. [11059]
  76
  Mr. Lang
  Data on UK and EU average inflation is regularly published by Central Statistical Office in its retail prices index first release. Indices of industrial production for the UK and EU average are regularly published in the OECD main economic indicators. Information on UK and EU trade outside the EU is regularly published by Eurostat in "External Trade", monthly statistics. Copies of all three publications are available in the Library of the House.

  Trade Balances
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the trade balance for each EU country with the rest of the EU. [11061]

  Mr. Lang
  The information requested is provided in the table:

  EU Countries visible trade balance1 with the rest of the EU 1994

  £ billion

  Belgium/Luxembourg

  10.1

  Denmark

  1.7

  France

  -4.3

  Germany

  10.1

  Greece

  -5.7

  Ireland

  5.1

  Italy

  4.5

  Netherlands

  24.7

  Portugal

  -3.7

  Spain

  -4.4

  UK

  -4.6

  Note:

  1 Visible exports less visible imports.

  Source:

  Intra and Extra EU Trade, published by Eurostat.

  Export Licences
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the name of the applicant in respect of each piece of correspondence dealt with by his Department on export licensing dated 6 April 1988. [15719]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  Information is not held in this form.

  Nuclear Power
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 6 February,Official Report, columns 146–47, what assessment he has made of whether the proposed sale of part of the nuclear power generation industry complies with EC rules; and if he will make a statement on the extent of Govnerment subsidy in respect of the sale of the nuclear power generation industry. [16209]

  Mr. Lang
  The proposed sale of part of the nuclear power generation industry will comply with EC rules. It is not the Government's intention to pay subsidy to British Energy plc.

  Waste Processing
  Mrs. Beckett
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what liabilities the Government propose that British Energy carry for reprocessing waste; and if he will make a statement. [16193]
  77
  Mr. Lang
  The Government have made it clear that in the restructuring of the nuclear generators liabilities will follow assets. British Energy will therefore carry those liabilities associated with its assets.

  Small Firms Loan Guarantee Scheme
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 12 February,Official Report, column 404, when he expects to announce the results of his review into the small firms loan guarantee scheme. [15687]

  Mr. Page
  I expect to be able to make an announcement shortly.

  Small Business Ministerial Group
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment he has made of the benefits to small and medium-sized enterprises from the first meeting of the small business ministerial group. [15679]

  Mr. Page
  The first meeting of the small business ministerial group took place on Monday 30 October 1995. The group has already met its initial objective of providing a forum for co-ordinated and cohesive policy to help small firms.

  Departmental Suppliers
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to ensure that his Department identifies the size of its suppliers by the number of their employees. [15610]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The Department's standard form requesting tenders or quotations for routine purchases includes a "Statement of Size of Organisation", which asks for details on the number of employees and annual turnover.

  Press Officers
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade, pursuant to his answer of 5 February,Official Report, column 17, how many press officers worked, and how much of the budget was spent, on small business issues for each year listed. [15635]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  As fostering the creation and development of small and medium-sized businesses is one of the objectives of the DTI, it follows that a proportion of most departmental press officers' time is spent on small business issues.

  It is not possible to disaggregate the centrally managed budgets to show spend on small business issues separately.

  EU Legislation
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade on which occasions in the last three years officials have vetoed draft EC legislation on the ground that a fiche d'impact had not been correctly prepared. [13647]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  [holding answer 9 February 1996]: The correct preparation of fiches d'impact is a very important part of our consideration of proposals for EC
  78
  legislation. It is one of the factors taken into account when Ministers consider the UK's negotiating position on a particular proposal.

DEFENCE

  Bosnia
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proportion of Britain's contribution to the Bosnian implementation force operation are reservists. [14579]

  Mr. Soames
  [holding answer 9 February 1996]: Some 3.6 per cent. of Britain's contribution to the IFOR operation are reservists.

  Ministry of Defence Police
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what basis the amount that the Royal Ordnance paid his Department for the services of the Ministry of Defence police is classified as commercially sensitive information; and if he will make a statement. [15212]

  Mr. Soames
  [Pursuant to his reply 17 January 1996, Official Report, column 580]: The financial aspects of contractual arrangements concerning the supply of goods or services to or from my Department are regarded as commercially confidential. Details of the amounts paid by Royal Ordnance plc for the services of the Ministry of Defence police are no exception.

  Offset Agreements
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what arrangements his Department makes to monitor offset agreements and ensure compliance. [15947]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  Companies with offset obligations are required to submit reports to my Department every six months, detailing relevant contracts awarded to UK defence industry during the reporting period. A full audit of these reports is conducted in order to establish the validity of the claims and to ensure that the companies are complying with the terms and conditions of their offset commitment.

  Scott Inquiry
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will publish the assessment made by his expert advisory group on whether export licences should have been granted to Matrix Churchill for equipment subject to examination by Lord Justice Scott's inquiry. [15966]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  This matter is dealt with by Sir Richard Scott's report. Sir Richard intends to publish in due course copies of those documents that he considers are relevant to the text of his report.

  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much has been spent on external legal advice for Ministers and civil servants in relation to the Scott inquiry and report since the period covered by his answer of 15 January,Official Report, column 734. [15901]
  79
  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The value of legal services charged by the Treasury Solicitor's Department in respect of Ministers and officials since the period covered by my previous answer is £255.

  Royal Yacht
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what considerations he will take into account in deciding whether to replace the royal yacht; and if he will make a statement. [15955]

  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence who is responsible for considering a replacement for the royal yacht Britannia. [15899]

  Mr. Soames
  [holding answer 19 February 1996]: The Government as a whole are considering the question of a replacement for Britannia. All relevant factors will be taken into account in reaching a final decision, including the role a replacement yacht might play in representing the nation overseas and in promoting British exports. An announcement will be made in due course.

  Unexploded Bombs
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 12 February,Official Report, column 445, if he will specify the sanctions and method for monitoring, follow-up and investigation of contractors not following such guidance. [15995]

  Mr. Soames
  My Department has no procedures in respect of contractors failing to act as described in my earlier answer, a circumstance which I find hard to envisage.

  Munitions Shipments
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will update his answer to the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent of 13 May 1993,Official Report, column 527, relating to munitions shipments. [16007]

  Mr. Soames
  [holding answer 19 February 1996]: I have nothing to add to the reply given on 13 May 1993.

  Departmental Suppliers
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to ensure that his Department identifies the size of its suppliers by the number of their employees. [15605]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  I have no plans to do so. As my answer on 19 December 1995,Official Report, column 1108, indicated, size is not a discriminatory factor when we award a contract. Collecting data from our suppliers on the number of staff they employed would place an unnecessary regulatory burden on companies while serving no useful purpose from my Department's point of view.

  Army Careers Information Offices
  Mr. Elletson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on progress on the review of the number and location of Army careers information offices. [16383]
  80
  Mr. Soames
  The review of the requirement for Army careers information offices has now been completed. It has been decided that 36 offices that were due for closure during the current financial year should remain open. Additionally, five new offices will be opened in areas where recruiting has been buoyant in the past. These offices will remain open for a initial period of one year to allow time for the recruiting initiative with the jobcentres, launched last month, to settle down.

  Bett Review
  Mr. Alison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on progress on his Department's consideration of the recommendations in the report of Sir Michael Bett's independent review of armed forces' career and manpower structures and terms and conditions of service. [16384]

  Mr. Soames
  In the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Arundel on 26 June,Official Report, column 503, I described the detailed work set in train on Sir Michael Bett's report. Good progress is being made and it remains our intention to complete this work in time to make a definitive announcement in the summer.

  In some areas, we have already reached conclusions. To meet the first and fundamental recommendation that a services personnel board should be created, a management group chaired by the Chief of the Defence Staff, has been established. This group will include an external member with relevant experience. The group is developing a personal strategy which will help shape future terms and conditions of service. The group has endorsed guidelines to apply to individual areas of personnel policy, which are now being promulgated, and a copy of which is being placed in the Library.

  The initial stages of detailed work have concentrated on career and rank structures, the balance between mobility and stability, policies on accompanied and unaccompanied service and related issues. The rank structure must be driven by operational considerations, including the need for continuity of command in the face of casualties. Account also needs to be taken of the increasingly multinational nature of operations and the need therefore for the UK rank structure to fit together with that of other countries. In the light of these considerations, we have decided not to implement the full package of changes proposed. In the case of officers, promotions to five star rank in peacetime will cease and other minor changes will be made: for other ranks some streamlining is planned. In both cases, the possibility of further changes will be kept under review in the light of the introduction of new arrangements for job evaluation and pay. We agree on the importance of using the minimum number of ranks and layers in non-operational organisations.

  We endorse the proposals for a more flexible pay system based on pay ranges, underpinned by improved job evaluation arrangements and involving a looser coupling of rank and pay. This is a particularly complex area and much detailed design work is now required. We have also endorsed in principle the recommendation that a tri-service agency should be established to manage personnel administration and pay delivery systems.
  81
  We are giving detailed consideration to the independent reviews' recommendations on career incentives and pensions. We recognise that any new career structures must give us the best means to manage recruitment and retention of the right numbers and high-quality personnel the services of the next century will need. In terms of postings and turbulence, each of the services intends to offer greater predictability in career management and improved family stability for its personnel wherever possible. We shall also be pursuing the recommendations about the need to support greater individual choice in such matters as home ownership and accompanied service.

  Further study and development work are continuing. We expect changes introduced as a result of the review to be broadly neutral in cost terms—this is not a savings exercise. At the same time, we will be looking to achieve reductions in the longer term resource cost of manpower and increased value for money, as Sir Michael envisaged, through better management of our people. Service personnel are being kept informed of developments with this important work.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Central Office of Information
  Mr. Elletson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what changes he plans to make to the Central Office of Information cash limit. [16299]

  Mr. Willetts
  The cash limit of the Central Office of Information is to be reduced by £188,000 following the transfer of the media advisory service to the Home Office.

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Chancellor of the duchy of Lancaster what was the expenditure by non-departmental public bodies in(a) 1979–80 and (b) 1994–95 in (i) cash, (ii) real terms and (iii) as a percentage of gross national product. [14946]

  Mr. Willetts
  Information on expenditure by non-departmental public bodies is held centrally for executive bodies only; That for advisory bodies and tribunals could be produced only at disproportionate cost. For executive non-departmental public bodies, systematic central recording of costs did not begin until 1981–82. However, the Pliatzky "Report on Non-Departmental Public Bodies" in 1980 calculated executive non-departmental public body expenditure for the single year 1978–79. For that year, expenditure by executive non-departmental public bodies was £6,150 million—equivalent, in real terms, to £17,940 million at 1995 prices. This represents approximately 3.5 per cent. of gross national product in 1978–79. Expenditure by executive non-departmental public bodies in 1994–95 was £20,840 million; a figure equivalent to approximately 3.0 per cent. of GNP in the same year.

  Increases in total expenditure since 1979 reflect new arrangements for channelling funds and new areas of programme expenditure. The Funding Agency for Schools and the Legal Aid Board, for example, now undertake functions previously performed by local education
  82
  authorities and the Law Society respectively. Expenditure by these two bodies in 1994–95 totalled approximately £3,000 million.

  Departmental Suppliers
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what plans he has to ensure that his Department identifies the size of its suppliers by the number of their employees. [15598]

  Mr. Willetts
  The requirement to seek information on the size of suppliers is covered in guidance issued to purchasing staff and it is planned to capture this information as part of the improvements to our procurement system to be introduced in 1996.

  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what plans he has to ensure that his Department identifies the size of its suppliers by the number of their employees. [15601]

  The Deputy Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given today by the Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service.

  Competitiveness
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how the promotion of sustainable development will be reflected in the implementation of the proposals contains in the White Paper, "Competitiveness: Forging Ahead." [15110]

  The Deputy Prime Minister
  The 1995 White Paper "Competitiveness: Forging Ahead" outlined policy initiatives across the whole of government to help create the right framework and conditions for business to operate in a way that is both competitive and sustainable. In particular, it set out how the Government's tax and regulatory policies are being used to achieve environmental objectives.

  The Government have encouraged, and will continue to encourage, industry to respond effectively to the challenges and opportunities of sustainable development. The White Paper set out how the Government are promoting to industry, and to small companies in particular, the benefits of positive environmental management and of best practice in the use of environmental technology and techniques.

  The importance of environmental issues will be discussed further in the next competitiveness White Paper due to be published later this year.

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what estimate he has made of the annual telephone costs to(a) his Department, (b) his Department's agencies and (c) his Department's non-departmental public bodies staff for (i) 1995–96 and (ii) 1996–97; and if internal telephone directories are available to staff in all areas of (a) to (c). [11374]
  83
  Mr. Willetts
  The estimated out-turn for 1995–96 is shown the following table:

  1995–96

  £

  Cabinet Office

  751,500

  Cabinet Office Agencies1

  539,650

  HMSO2

  1,413,000

  COI

  272,550

  1 SAFE and the Buying Agency became OPS Agencies as from 1 January 1996; their costs have been included.

  2 Calendar year data.

  The Cabinet Office has no executive non-departmental public bodies. Telephone costs for its advisory NDPBs are included in the figures above.

  Estimates for 1996–97 are still being prepared as part of the Department's normal budgeting round.

  Internal telephone directories are available to staff in all areas.

  Deregulation
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is the most recently enacted legislation that he proposes to repeal by way of deregulation orders. [15886]

  Mr. Freeman
  The most recently enacted legislation proposed for repeal is the Rag, Flock and Other Fillings Materials Act 1953 and the most recently enacted legislation proposed for amendment is the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992. These are, however, subject to the result of public consultation and scrutiny by Committees in both Houses.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Scott Inquiry
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Attorney-General how much has been spent on external legal advice for Ministers and civil servants in relation to the Scott inquiry since 15 January. [15927]

  The Attorney-General
  No external advice has been sought since 15 January on behalf of individual Ministers or officials in Departments for which I am responsible.

  Crown Prosecution Service
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Attorney-General what age restrictions are currently in force for recruitment to the Crown Prosecution Service. [15296]

  The Attorney-General
  None.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people sought asylum in the 84
  United Kingdom in the last 12 months for which figures are available; and what assessment he has made of trends in these figures over the last 10 years. [14353]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  The total number of asylum applications in 1995 was 43,965. Information on applications made in 1986 to 1994 is published in table 2.1 of the Home Office statistical bulletin "Asylum Statistics United Kingdom 1994", issue 15/95. A copy of this publication is available in the Library.

  There has been a massive increase in the number of asylum applications received since 1988. The 1995 figure is nearly as high as the peak figure of 1991, which included a significant proportion of multiple applications made by individuals under different names. It represents a 34 per cent. increase on 1994 and is nearly double the figure for 1993. The upward trend underlines the need for the firm action the Government are taking to deter unfounded applications.

  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum applications were refused and certified as being without foundation on the grounds that the asylum claim was frivolous or vexatious in(a) 1994 and (b) 1995. [15541]

  Miss Widdecombe
  Provisional estimates indicate that, in 1994, between 300 and 400 asylum applications were refused on the grounds that the claims were frivolous or vexatious. It is estimated that there were fewer than 100 such cases in 1995. These figures may exclude some port applications refused as frivolous or vexatious which were dealt with under fast track procedures.

  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the total amount of liability incurred by all carriers under the Immigration (Carriers Liability) Act 1987; how much of that total liability has been paid; how much has been waived; and how much is outstanding. [15531]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  A total of £89.604 million had been incurred to 31 January 1996. Of that sum, £53.327 million had been paid and £17.578 million waived following representations from carriers. A sum of £ 18.699 million remained outstanding.

  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the consequences for the applicant of an appeal to the Immigration Appellate Authority against a refusal under paragraph 345 of the immigration rules being(a) allowed and (b) referred back to the Secretary of State for reconsideration under paragraph 5 of schedule 2 to the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993. [15542]

  Miss Widdecombe
  In either case, the consequences, including whether the claim was to be considered substantively, would depend on the circumstances, including whether further refusal under paragraph 345 was appropriate.

  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will provide a breakdown of the number of asylum seekers currently detained under Immigration Act powers by(a) nationality, (b) gender, (c) place of detention, (d) length of detention and (e) immigration status at the time of application. [15551]
  85
  Miss Widdecombe
  The information requested is given in the tables.

  Table 1: Number of people recorded as detained on 31 January 19961 who had sought asylum at some stage, by gender and immigration status

  Port

  Illegal entrants

  Deport

  Total

  Male

  376

  263

  45

  684

  Female

  42

  5

  2

  49

  Total

  418

  268

  47

  733

  1 These figures include people detained for under a month, because of the amount of lag created by the amount of people detained and released in under a month these figures should be used with caution.

  Table 2: Number of people recorded as detained on 31 January 1996 who had sought asylum at some stage, by length of detention

  Length

  Total number detained

  0–1 month1

  194

  1–2 months

  133

  2–6 months

  296

  6–12 months

  97

  12 months +

  13

  Total

  733

  1 With the amount of detainees coming in and out of detention in under a month these figures should be treated as estimates.

  Table 3: Number of people recorded as detained on 31 January 19961 who had sought asylum at some stage, by nationality

  Nationality

  Total number detained

  Nigeria

  109

  India

  91

  Algeria

  71

  Gambia

  58

  China Peoples Republic of

  38

  Sri Lanka

  31

  Ghana

  30

  Turkey

  29

  Pakistan

  26

  Zaire

  23

  Bangladesh

  22

  Kenya

  19

  Angola

  13

  Romania

  12

  Ecuador

  10

  Former Yugoslavia

  10

  Iran

  8

  Lithuania

  8

  Somalia

  7

  Afghanistan

  6

  Jamaica

  6

  Poland

  6

  Sierra Leone

  6

  Albania

  5

  Niger

  5

  Sudan

  5

  Uganda

  5

  Czechoslovakia

  4

  Lebanon

  4

  Palestine

  4

  Tanzania

  4

  Ivory Coast

  4

  Columbia

  3

  Cyprus

  3

  Cuba

  3

  Ethiopia

  3

  Liberia

  3

  Morocco

  3

  86

  Table 3: Number of people recorded as detained on 31 January 19961 who had sought asylum at some stage, by nationality

  Nationality

  Total number detained

  Russia

  3

  Bulgaria

  2

  Congo

  2

  Eritrea

  2

  Moldova

  2

  Peru

  2

  South Africa

  2

  Togo

  2

  Others

  15

  Nationality Doubtful

  4

  Totals

  733

  1 These figures include people detained for under a month, because of the amount of lag created by the amount of people detained and released in under a month these figures should be used with caution.

  Table 4: Number of people recorded as detained on 31 January 19961 who had sought asylum at some stage, by location of detention

  Total number detained

  Prisons

  HMP Rochester

  136

  HMP Haslar

  90

  HMP Harmondsworth

  87

  HMP Winson Green

  41

  HMP Wormwood Scrubs

  12

  HMP Greenock

  10

  HMP Crumlin Road

  10

  HMP Brixton

  9

  HMP Wandsworth

  8

  HMP Armley

  3

  HMP Bristol

  2

  HMP Craiginchess

  2

  HMP Liverpool

  2

  HMP Doncaster

  2

  Others

  18

  Other places of detention

  Campsfield detention centre

  142

  Gatwick airport detention centre

  33

  Police cells

  33

  Queen's buildings

  17

  Dover harbour

  15

  Newhaven port

  15

  Stanstead airport detention centre

  15

  Port

  12

  Manchester airport detention centre

  6

  Birmingham airport detention centre

  3

  Others

  10

  Total

  733

  1 These figures include people detained for under a month, because of the amount of lag created by the amount of people detained and released in under a month these figures should be used with caution.

  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many substantive asylum appeals to Immigration Appellate Authority special adjudicators were(a) allowed, (b) dismissed and (c) withdrawn in each quarter of 1994 and 1995. [15540]

  Miss Widdecombe
  The information on outcomes of substantive appeals to adjudicators in 1995 is given in the table. Information for 1994 is published in table 8.4 of the Home Office Statistical Bulletin "Asylum Statistics
  87
  United Kingdom 1994", issue 15/95. A copy of this publication is available in the Library.

  Outcome of substantive asylum appeals to the adjudicator, excluding dependants, by quarter 1995

  Percentage

  of which:

  Total substantive determinations

  Allowed

  Dismissed

  Withdrawn

  1995

  January-March

  1,070 (100)

  2

  82

  16

  April-June

  1,255 (100)

  4

  79

  18

  July-September

  1,770 (100)

  4

  82

  14

  October-December

  1,830 (100)

  2

  80

  18

  Total (January-December)

  5,920(100)

  3

  81

  16

  1 Figures are provisional and rounded to the nearest 5.

  2 Includes cases withdrawn.

  3 Percentages may not add up to 100 due to rounding.

  Departmental Suppliers
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to ensure that his Department identifies the size of its suppliers by the number of their employees. [15606]

  Mr. Howard
  The Home Office is taking forward a Treasury recommendation for measuring the volume of business placed with small to medium enterprises. We are planning for our financial systems to have the capacity to record the size of suppliers by the number of their employees. The first of these systems is being introduced on 1 April 1996. Consideration is being given to how information about company size can best be obtained from our suppliers.

  Immigration
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a further statement on the 64 cases covered in his answer of 3 December 1987,Official Report, column 682. [15876]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  Inquiries are being made and I shall write to my hon. Friend about the outcome.

  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the(a) arrivals and (b) departures from the Indian sub-continent of overseas residents indicating the balance between the two for each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement. [15843]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  Information on arrivals in the United Kingdom of overseas residents from the Indian sub-continent in 1992–4 was given in my reply to my hon. Friend on 8 February,Official Report, column 304. Corresponding figures for 1990 and 1991 are 257,000 and 260,000 respectively. Data on overseas residents departing from the United Kingdom for the Indian sub-continent are not available.
  88

  Regulatory Bodies
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list each regulatory body for which he is responsible indicating for each the percentage of business people on the board. [15742]

  Mr. Howard
  My Department is responsible for the following regulatory bodies:

  The Commission for Racial Equality

  The Drugs Branch Inspectorate

  The Gaming Board for Great Britain

  Licensing and inspection under the Animal (Scientific Procedures) Act

  Office of the Data Protection Registrar

  Sixty-seven per cent. of the commissioners on the Commission for Racial Equality and 40 per cent. of the members of the Gaming Board are business people.

  There are no boards for licensing and inspection under the Animal (Scientific Procedures) Act, the Drugs Branch Inspectorate or for the Office of the Data Protection Registrar.

  Drugs-related Crime
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what definition his Department uses for the term drug-related crime. [16053]

  Mr. Sackville
  Drug-related crime is defined in paragraph 2.2 of the White Paper, "Tackling Drugs Together", a copy of which is in the Library. It encompasses any criminal activity which is committed either to fund or as a consequence of drug misuse.

  Electronic Monitoring
  Lady Olga Maitland
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he proposes to extend the length of the electronic monitoring trials; and if he will make a statement. [16715]

  Mr. Howard
  Yes. As I told my hon. Friend the Member for Swindon (Mr. Coombs) in my answer of 7 November 1995,Official Report, columns 813–14, I have been considering a request from the Magistrates' Association to extend the length of the electronic monitoring trials into the next financial year. I agree with the association that it would be helpful to give courts more time to become used to the curfew order, and for it to find its place among other community sentences.

  The present trials are currently due to end in April this year and I am proposing to extend them until March 1997. We will also consult interested parties about increasing the number of courts in Greater Manchester and Berkshire, which will have the sentence available to them.

  Ponies (Research)
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what guidelines govern the minimum animal welfare and research ethic standards to be applied to ponies used in research into(a) equine flu, (b) equine herpes and (c) surgery on broken limbs at the Animal Health Trust; and if he will make a statement. [14241]
  89
  Mr. Sackville
  [holding answer 8 February 1996]: General guidance on the 1986 Act has been published as "Guidance on the Operation of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986" [1990: HC182].

  Pepper Sprays
  Mr. Hawksley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what investigation he is conducting into the possible use of pepper sprays by police in Britain. [15718]

  Mr. Maclean
  The Home Office police scientific development branch keeps abreast of the results of all relevant research being undertaken into pepper spray. At this stage, my right hon. and learned Friend considers that not enough is known about the health effects of pepper spray for it to be used by the police in this country.

  Unified Incident Report and Alerting System
  Mr. Hoon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if the MI5 audit on the unified incident report and alerting system will be made public. [15406]

  Mr. Howard
  It is not Government policy to publish reports produced under the unified information technology incident reporting and alert scheme, UNIRAS. The scheme relates to the monitoring of incidents which may affect the secure operation of information technology systems handling Government information.

  Criminal Justice and Public Order 1994
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people have been arrested; what charges have been brought against them; what convictions have been obtained; and what penalties have been imposed under each of the public order provisions of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. [15426]

  Mr. Maclean
  Separate statistics on arrests by offence groups are not available centrally. Information on court proceedings data under the public order provisions of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 will not be available until autumn 1996.

  Mr. Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the public order provisions of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. [15427]

  Mr. Maclean
  Sections 61 to 69 of the 1994 Act and sections 14A to 14C of the Public Order Act 1986, as amended by sections 70 and 71 of the 1994 Act, provide the police with powers to deal with trespassers on land, certain types of raves, disruptive trespassers and trespassory assemblies. Officials are closely monitoring the effectiveness of these measures. It is too early to reach firm conclusions about how the powers are working in practice, although I have received some favourable reports.

  For the most part, offences under these sections are committed only where there is a failure to comply with a police direction to leave the land or where there is a failure to comply with a direction not to proceed to a rave
  90
  or a trespassory assembly. Statistics on court proceedings for offences under the relevant sections will not be available until autumn 1996.

  Terrorist Prisoners
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many prisoners convicted of crimes related to Northern Ireland terrorism are currently held in special security units in Britain; [14676]

  (2) if he will list (a) the number of prisoners convicted of crimes relating to Northern Irish terrorism currently in prison in Britain, (b) the length of the sentence of each of the prisoners and (c) how many years of their sentences each has already served. [14789]

  Miss Widdecombe
  [holding answer 14 February 1996]: Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the temporary Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Richard Tilt to Mr. Tony Worthington, dated 20 February 1996:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Questions about the number of prisoners convicted of crimes relating to Northern Irish terrorism in prison in Britain; the length of sentence of each of the prisoners; how many years of their sentence each has already served; and the number currently held in Special Security Units in Britain.
  There are currently 24 prisoners serving sentences in prison in England and Wales for such offences, five of whom are held in a Special Security Unit.
  The attached table shows the date and length of sentence of these prisoners.
  Precise information about length of sentence served, the calculation of which needs to take account of time spent on remand, is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Date of sentence

  Length of sentence

  11 May 1976

  Life

  10 February 1977

  Life

  10 February 1977

  Life

  10 February 1977

  Life

  10 February 1977

  Life

  10 February 1977

  Life

  23 June 1986

  Life

  14 April 1987

  16 years

  27 October 1987

  25 years

  16 February 1988

  Life

  20 June 1988

  17 years

  8 June 1990

  30 years

  6 December 1990

  30 years

  30 March 1993

  Life

  30 March 1993

  18 years

  19 July 1993

  17 years

  10 February 1994

  16 years

  10 February 1994

  25 years

  10 February 1994

  35 years

  13 May 1994

  30 years

  13 May 1994

  30 years

  22 August 1994

  25 years

  21 October 1994

  25 years

  20 January 1995

  20 years

  91

  Mentally Ill Prisoners
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people classified or registered with prison doctors as suffering from mental illness are at present in Her Majesty's prisons. [15287]

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

  Letter from Richard Tilt to Mr. John Battle, dated 20 February 1996:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the number of people at present in prison who are mentally ill.
  This information is not available in the form requested. Certain information is collected centrally about prisoners with mental disorders, a term which includes, in addition to prisoners with mental illnesses, those suffering from mental impairment, severe mental impairment and psychopathic disorder.
  On 20 January, the most recent date for which such information is available, 163 prisoners were recorded as awaiting removal or transfer to a psychiatric hospital under provisions of the Mental Health Act 1983; 853 prisoners were recorded as being sufficiently mentally disordered to be occupying beds in prison health care centres; and 1,380 prisoners were recorded as requiring some form of mental health care but not transfer to hospital or in-patient treatment in a prison health care centre.

  Female Fine Defaulters
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many women have been sentenced to prison for non-payment of(a) a fine (b) a debt to a statutory body or (c) a debt to a public utility in each of the last 10 years. [15329]

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

  Letter from Richard Tilt to Mr. Hugh Bayley, dated 20 February 1996:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question asking, how many women have been sentenced to prison for non payment of (a) a fine, (b) a debt to a statutory body or (c) a debt to a public utility in each of the last 10 years.
  The available information on the number of female fine defaulters and non-criminal prisoners received into Prison Service establishments in England and Wales from 1985–94 is published in "Prison statistics, England and Wales 1994", Cm 3087, Tables 6.3 and 7.3, a copy of which is available in the Library of the House.
  Provisional information for 1995 shows that 1,401 female fine defaulters were received into Prison Service establishments in England and Wales. There were 85 receptions of females for non-criminal non payment offences, all for non payment of community charge, council tax or rates.
  Information relating to debt to a statutory body (apart from persons committed to custody for non payment of community charge, council tax or rates) and to a public utility is not separately identified and is included with "Other debts" in 1995; there were no female receptions under this category.

  Holloway Prison
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action was taken following the reports of insect infestation at the mother and baby unit, Holloway prison, last year. [15207]
  92
  Miss Widdecombe
  Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the temporary Director General of the Prison Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Richard Tilt to Mr. Harry Cohen, dated 20 February, 1996:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about what action was taken following reports of insect infestation in the mother and baby unit at Holloway prison last year.
  Immediate action was taken by calling in pest control contractors who sprayed the identified areas with a safe residual pesticide.

HEALTH

  Nurses
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many nursing staff were employed in Hartlepool, Sunderland and Durham hospitals in each of the last five years. [13216]

  Mr. Malone
  Comparable figures for the number of nursing staff employed in Hartlepool, Sunderland and Durham hospitals in each of the last five years are not centrally available.

  The latest nursing and midwifery figures available from the Department of Health are for 1994 and relate to the national health service trusts in these three towns which all attained trust status in April 1994. Between 1991 and 1993 the nursing and midwifery staff figures were collected for each of the directly managed units—DMUs—which, after some reconfiguration, went on to form the trusts established in April 1994. For 1990, the information is available only at district health authority level; individual DMUs are not separately identifiable.

  The number of nursing and midwifery staff is collected by the Department of Health's non-medical work force census. The census results are published at national level in a statistical bulletin, copies of which are available in the Library. Regional tables for the 1994 census will also be placed in the Library shortly. Results are not normally published below regional level but are available on request for 1994 at health authority, trust or DMU level. Only limited detailed figures are available for earlier years.

  References:

  DH Statistical Bulletin Non-medical Workforce Census: 95/18

  DH Statistical Bulletin Non-medical Workforce Census: 1994/11

  DH Statistical Bulletin Non-medical Workforce Census: 13/93

  DH Statistical Bulletin Non-medical Workforce Census:1/93

  Nurses and Midwives
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many nurses and midwives there were(a) in 1979 and (b) in 1994. [13683]

  Mr. Horam
  The information is not centrally available. I refer the hon. Member to the United Kingdom Central Council for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting annual statistical reports, copies of which are available in the Library.
  93

  External Consultancies
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the total amount in each of the last five years spent on external consultancies by(a) the Department of Health, (b) regional health authorities, (c) district health authorities and (d) NHS management executives. [14808]

  Mr. Horam
  Running cost expenditure on external consultancy by the Department of Health, its agencies and the national health service executive—formerly the NHS management executive—in each of the last five years is as shown.

  1990–91: £18,398,00011991–92: £24,258,0001

  1992–93: £18,399,0002

  1993–94: £15,933,0373

  1994–95: £18,479,4054

  Notes:

  1Expenditure by the NHS Executive in the years 1990–91 and 1991–92 cannot be disaggregated.

  2 Includes expenditure of £6,675,821 by the NHS Executive.

  3Includes expenditure of £4,975,579 by the NHS Executive.

  4Includes expenditure of £4,339,752 by the NHS Executive.

  Information about expenditure on external consultancy by regional and district health authorities is not available centrally.

  Zergo Consulting
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what were the findings of the study carried out by Zergo Consulting for the NHS information management group into the feasibility of encrypting data on the NHS-wide network; and what plans he has to publish the report; [14939]

  (2) what were the terms of reference for the study carried out by Zergo Consulting for the NHS information management group in to the feasibility of encrypting data on the NHS-wide network; [14938]

  (3) what was the cost of the study carried out by Zergo Consulting for the NHS information management group into the feasibility of encrypting data on the NHS-wide network. [14940]

  Mr. Horam
  The terms of reference of the study carried out by Zergo Consulting for the national health service information management group into the feasibility of encrypting data on the NHS-wide network were as follows:In order to ensure that the network architecture is appropriate to future needs a study is required which explores the practical issues of using the following security services: Digital Signatures to provide strong authentication and integrity checking; Trusted Third Party facilities for certifying encryption keys; encryption for confidentiality.

  The NHS executive seeks advice on the purposes for which these services can be used, the contexts and the extent to which they might be used in each context; the probable costs and benefits which would accrue in each context, and to which parties they would accrue; the most suitable standards and types of product to be used; the additional costs and implications of providing these services on a national NHS basis in such a fashion that they are available for use when those communicating NHS information think it appropriate.
  94
  The findings of the study will be published when the NHS executive and Ministers have had an opportunity to study them. A copy will be sent to the Library.

  The quotation for the cost of the study was provided by Zergo Consulting in competition with two other expert firms. All quotations are classified restricted—commercial.

  NHS Administrative Salaries
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the total remuneration of NHS district health authorities' general managers for 1990. [15197]

  Mr. Malone
  The salaries and wages costs of general managers in district health authorities for 1990–91 was £11,363,000. This figure includes employers' national insurance and superannuation contributions.

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what were the running costs of the blood service in(a) 1993–94 and (b) 1994–95; what is the estimated outturn for 1995–96; and how much they are forecast to be in the next three financial years. [15651]

  Mr. Horam
  The costs of 1994–95 are estimated to be £153 million. Details of the expected out-turn of the national blood service for the years 1995–96 to 1998–99 are set out in the document "Plans for the Future of the National Blood Service" of November 1995, copies of which are available in the Library. The figure for 1993–94 is not available because the costs of the blood service were not identified separately in NHS summarised accounts.

  Dioxin Emissions
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research he has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated on the relationship between the emissions of dioxins from incinerators with levels of (i) cancer and (ii) infertility. [15655]

  Mr. Horam
  The Department of Health, with other Government Departments, funds the small area health statistics unit—SAHSU—located at the London school of hygiene and tropical medicine. The SAHSU has carried out a study of cancer incidence near municipal solid waste incinerators, although it did not include measures of exposure to dioxins. The report of this study will be published in the March 1996 issue of the British Journal of Cancer.

  The health effects of dioxins are also regularly reviewed by expert committees which advise the Government. These include the Committee on the Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment, and the Committee on Carcinogenicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment.

  Adrenoleukodystrophy
  Mr. Peter Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what guidelines are currently issued by his Department to hospital trusts to ensure that blood relatives of persons diagnosed as suffering from adrenoleukodystrophy are informed and offered suitable advice; [15537]
  95
  (2) if he will issue guidelines to hospital trusts on the procedures for the notification of blood relatives when a case of genetic deficiency syndrome is first diagnosed. [15539]

  Mr. Horam
  Guidelines "Population Needs and Genetic Services" were issued to health authorities in June 1993 under the cover of a letter from the chief medical officer and chief nursing officer entitled "Services for Genetic Disorders". The guidelines set out the principles of good practice in respect of informing and offering suitable advice to relatives of persons diagnosed as suffering from heritable disorders such as adrenoleukodystrophy.

  Mr. Peter Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the most common genetic deficiency conditions; what are the known numbers of(a) carriers and (b) sufferers from subsequent diseases; and in each case what percentage is (i) female and (ii) male. [15538]

  Mr. Horam
  The most common genetic deficiency disease—genetic disorder—in the United Kingdom is cystic fibrosis. The disease occurs in one in 2,000 children born, and approximately one in 25 of healthy adults carry a defective gene concerned with this condition.

  All other genetic disorders are rarer. There are some 4,000 different such disorders known. Those reported to have birth frequency of 1:5,000 or more, are:

  Huntington's disease

  Adult polycystic kidney disease

  Familial hypercholesterolaemia

  Neurofibromatosis

  Retinitis pigmentosa

  Sickle cell disease in Afro-Caribbeans

  Thalassaemia in those of Cypriot. Indian. Pakistani origin

  Fragile X syndrome

  Information on the number of carriers and sufferers from subsequent diseases, and on the percentage of female and male in these categories is not available centrally.

  Young Offenders
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the annual cost to each local authority social services department of placing young offenders in secure accommodation for each year since 1988. [15438]

  Mr. Bowis
  Data for 1994–95 are not yet complete; corresponding information for earlier years was not collected centrally.

  High Voltage Power Lines (Cancer Risks)
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what assessment he plans to make of the research and conclusions of Professor Denis Henshaw's study on the potential cancer risks of high voltage power lines; [15973]

  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the report of Professor Denis Henshaw on the relationship between electromagnetic fields and cancers. [15844]

  Mr. Horam
  The National Radiological Protection Board—NRPB—considers that the suggested mechanism put forward in the report by which electromagnetic fields 96
  in interaction with radon leads to an increased risk of cancer is implausible. The board advises that the weight of the evidence would suggest that the presence of such fields would, if anything, slightly reduce human exposure to radon daughters. In addition, the board has advised that there is no convincing evidence that electromagnetic fields are a cause of cancer and that no biological mechanism has been established in support of this hypothesis.

  The NRPB currently has an active programme on the possible effects of electromagnetic fields and health and is funding experimental work in United Kingdom universities and supporting the UK childhood cancer study, which is examining a range of factors that may be implicated in childhood cancer, including the possible effect of electromagnetic fields. The Department will continue to monitor the results of emerging research closely, and to maintain its support for research in these areas, consulting NRPB and the committee on medical aspects of radiation in the environment as necessary.

  Dissolved NHS Trusts
  Mr. Elletson
  To ask the Secretary of State forn Health what financial arrangements are being made for the NHS trusts dissolved on 1 April 1995. [16610]

  Mr. Dorrell
  Pursuant to the dissolution of eight national health service trusts on 1 April 1995, and their reconfiguration with parts, or all, of other trusts or directly managed units, I propose to create new originating debt for the five new trusts equal to the net assets transferred to them and therefore to remit the outstanding debt on seven dissolved trusts. The eighth dissolved trust has merged with another trust and the debt associated with that dissolved trust has been transferred to the trust with which it has merged. These operations involve no loss to the Exchequer. Her Majesty's Treasury has today presented a minute to the House giving the particulars and circumstances of the proposed remission which it has approved in principle.

  Health Authority Chairmen
  Ms Coffey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many appointments have been made of chairmen of the new health authorities; and what percentage of those appointments are women. [15575]

  Mr. Malone
  Chairmen have been identified for 99 of the 100 proposed health authorities. Forty-two per cent. of the chairmen are women.

  Beta Interferon
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what steps he has taken to ensure that beta interferon is available on a consistent basis nationally; [15637]

  (2) what advice has been issued to health authorities about the prescribing of beta interferon; if he will place copies of correspondence on that advice in the Library; and if he will make a statement. [15636]

  Mr. Malone
  Executive letter (95)97 issued in November suggested that beta interferon should be prescribed by hospital neurologists to treat multiple sclerosis where clinically appropriate and within local agreements between health authorities and hospitals. The
  97
  guidance was accompanied by clinical advice from the Standing Medical Advisory Committee. Copies of both documents are available in the Library.

  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of States for Health what extra resources he has made available to health authorities to enable beta interferon to be available to patients. [15638]

  Mr. Malone
  As with other hospital-prescribed drugs, the costs of prescribing beta interferon are expected to be met from within health authority general allocations, having regard to local priorities. These allocations take account of overall cost pressures and potential efficiency and other savings within the national health service.

  Prescriptions
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of prescription items have a cost of less than £5.50. [15639]

  Mr. Malone
  In 1995–96, it is estimated that 58 per cent. of all prescription items dispensed in England will have a total cost of less than £5.50. In the same year we estimate the average total cost of a single item to the national health service to be £8.80.

  Departmental Suppliers
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to ensure that his Department identifies the size of its suppliers by the number of their employees. [15599]

  Mr. Horam
  None. The Department's policy is to achieve best value for money—VFM—from all its procurements. It agrees contracts with suppliers, irrespective of size, in order to achieve this objective. Recording this information would not help improve VFM or competitiveness and would add an unnecessary burden on suppliers.

  Regulatory Bodies
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list each regulatory body for which he is responsible indicating for each the percentage of business people on the board. [15737]

  Mr. Horam
  The information is shown in the table.

  Regulatory body

  Percentage of business people on the board

  Medicines Control Agency

  50

  Medical Devices Agency

  40

  Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority

  19

  GP Fundholders
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what information his Department maintains on the use of general practice fundholders' savings(a) by general practitioner fundholding practices and (b) by regional health authorities. [9034]
  98
  Mr. Malone
  [pursuant to his reply, 16 January c. 555]: The Department receives information from each family health services authority each year on the amount of savings used by general practitioner fundholders.

  Monitoring of the detailed use of savings is a local responsibility. Information about this is not routinely collected centrally.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 16 January,Official Report, column 555, if he will list (a) by family health service authority, and (b) by region, the total savings made by general practitioners and the level of savings spent in each year since the inception of fundholding. [11108]

  Mr. Malone
  I refer the hon. Member to the replies I gave him on 24 November 1994,Official Report, column 321–22, and on 14 March 1995, Official Report, column 545–46, which provide the available information on savings made by general practitioner fundholders.

  The available information on savings used by GP fundholders is given in the table.

  Savings used by GP Fundholders—1993–94

  FHSA name

  Amount used (£000)

  Northern Yorkshire

  Bradford

  262

  Calderdale

  2

  Cleveland

  131

  Cumbria

  0

  Durham

  171

  Gateshead

  52

  Humberside

  90

  Kirklees

  0

  Leeds

  265

  Newcastle

  27

  North Tyneside

  0

  North Yorkshire

  405

  Northumberland

  75

  South Tyneside

  5

  Sunderland

  0

  Wakefield

  638

  Trent

  Barnsley

  0

  Derbyshire

  168

  Doncaster

  27

  Leicestershire

  319

  Lincolnshire

  150

  Nottinghamshire

  159

  Rotherham

  6

  Sheffield

  39

  Anglia and Oxford

  Bedfordshire

  43

  Berkshire

  737

  Buckinghamshire

  1,009

  Cambridgeshire

  155

  Norfolk

  266

  Northamptonshire

  199

  Oxfordshire

  272

  Suffolk

  98

  North Thames

  Barking and Havering

  1

  Barnet

  49

  Brent and Harrow

  8

  Camden and Islington

  107

  99

  Savings used by GP Fundholders—1993–94

  FHSA name

  Amount used (£000)

  City and East London

  32

  Ealing, Hammersmith and Hounslow

  153

  Enfield and Haringey

  21

  Essex

  438

  Hertfordshire

  524

  Hillingdon

  104

  Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster

  140

  Redbridge and Waltham Forest

  7

  South Thames

  Bromley

  27

  Croydon

  24

  East Sussex

  47

  Greenwich and Bexley

  37

  Kent

  109

  Kingston and Richmond

  74

  Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham

  21

  Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth

  158

  Surrey

  78

  West Sussex

  148

  South and West

  Avon

  248

  Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly

  267

  Devon

  299

  Dorset

  151

  Gloucestershire

  26

  Hampshire

  263

  Isle of Wight

  18

  Somerset

  123

  Wiltshire

  37

  100

  Savings used by GP Fundholders—1993–94

  FHSA name

  Amount used (£000)

  West Midlands

  Birmingham

  468

  Coventry

  49

  Dudley

  0

  Hereford and Worcestershire

  676

  Sandwell

  228

  Shropshire

  203

  Solihull

  521

  Staffordshire

  522

  Walsall

  50

  Warwickshire

  23

  Wolverhampton

  0

  North-west

  Bolton

  0

  Bury

  0

  Cheshire

  649

  Lancashire

  89

  Liverpool

  304

  Manchester

  38

  Oldham

  913

  Rochdale

  39

  Salford

  0

  Sefton

  152

  St. Helens and Knowsley

  108

  Stockport

  0

  Tameside

  68

  Trafford

  0

  Wigan

  0

  Wirral

  148

  Source:

  Regional offices.
  101

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when the Department began its investigation into allegations of irregularities in payments made by training and enterprise councils to a national training provider; if the investigation is now complete; how many TECs are involved; and what was the total sum of money involved. [15085]

  Mrs. Gillan
  [holding answer 13 February 1996]: The Department's investigation started in April 1994 and has been completed. The investigation focused primarily on claims on one training and enterprise council. There has been no financial loss to the Department. Close liaison with the National Audit Office and the police was maintained throughout, and police inquiries are continuing.

  Grant-maintained Schools
  Mr. Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what will be the total cost to her Department of the "Going GM" conference to be held on 13 March in Huddersfield. [15192]

  Mrs. Gillan
  The cost of the "Going GM" conference on 13 March will not be known until after the event, as it is dependent on the number of delegates who attend on the day. The average cost per delegate as "Going GM" conferences is about £115, which compares favourable with the cost of any training day.

  Schools (Outside Toilets)
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many schools with outside toilets there are currently in each local education authority. [15571]

  Mrs. Gillan
  The information is not collected centrally.

  Handicapped Young People
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many individuals between the ages of 16 and 18 years who(a) are disabled or, (b) have learning difficulties are currently in (i) full-time education, (ii) Government-funded training courses, (iii) employment and (iv) none of (i) to (iii). [15209]

  Mr. Paice
  The information available is in the following table:

  Principal activity of young people age 16–181 and whether they have a work limiting disability

  UK, thousand

  All

  With a work limiting disability2

  All age 16–181

  1,997

  130

  In full time education

  1,173

  72

  102

  Principal activity of young people age 16–181 and whether they have a work limiting disability

  UK, thousand

  All

  With a work limiting disability2

  In employment or Government supported training3

  605

  32

  None of the above

  219

  27

  Source:

  Labour Force Survey, winter 1994–95.

  1Age at previous 31 August.

  2People with a health problem or disability that affects the kind of paid work they can do.

  3The Labour Force Survey is known to under count the number of people in Government supported training and so in this table estimates are not shown separately from those in employment.

  Key Stage Results
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary for Education and Employment what representations she has had from(a) Somserset local education authority, (b) other local education authorities in the southern examination group and (c) other local education authorities alleging (i) inadequacies and (ii) errors in the discs supplied by her Department on key stage 2 and key stage 3 results. [15451]

  Mr. Paice
  Representations have been received from a number of local education authorities, including Somerset, concerning the discs supplied. The data supplied to LEAs were collected for national analysis and are reliable for that purpose. LEAs were sent school level data in response to pressure from LEAs themselves but were warned that some of the data for individual schools were incomplete or had not satisfied the relevant national checks. Data collection procedures for 1996 are being amended and will be fully robust and suitable for providing school-by-school information for school performance tables.

  Workstart
  Sir Ralph Howell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many employers in the Margate travel-to-work area participate in the workstart scheme. [15830]

  Mr. Forth
  This information is not available for the town of Margate. Margate was included in the east Kent workstart pilot which ended in December 1994. It is estimated that over 400 employers had by then participated in east Kent.

  Sir Ralph Howell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) how many employers were involved in the north-east workstart pilot scheme; what was the average number of employees participating in the scheme in each firm; and what was the overall cost or saving to public funds in each case; [15825]

  (2) how many employers were involved in the Devon and Cornwall workstart pilot scheme; what was the average number of employees participating in the scheme in each firm; and what was the overall cost or saving to public funds in each case; [15826]
  103
  (3) how many employers were involved in the south London workstart pilot scheme; what was the average number of employees participating in the scheme in each firm; and what was the overall cost or saving to public funds in each case; [15827]

  (4) how many employers were involved in the east Kent workstart pilot scheme; what was the average number of employees participating in the scheme in each firm; and what was the overall cost or saving to public funds in each case. [15828]

  Mr. Forth
  The first workstart pilot took place in Devon and Cornwall, Kent, Tyneside and south west London between July 1993 and December 1994. Information on participating employees and employers at the end of September is as follows:

  Pilot

  Participants

  Employers

  Kent

  418

  380

  Devon and Cornwall

  475

  309

  Tyneside

  222

  130

  South West and South London

  210

  144

  By the end of December 1994, the total number of participating employees in the four pilots had reached 1,575, and it is estimated that over 1,000 employers had been involved. The total programme costs were £2.7 million. Savings to the Exchequer from any employment arise from long-term improvements in the functioning of the labour market and cannot be calculated in the terms requested.

  Jobseeker's Allowance
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if the 16-hour limit for study under the jobseeker's agreement will apply to students on courses (i) funded by the European social fund and (ii) provided by the higher education sector; and if she will make a statement. [15572]

  Mr. Forth
  The 16 guided learning hours limit will apply only to courses which are funded or part-funded by the further education funding councils for England and Wales. The limit for courses of further education which are funded or part-funded by the Secretary of State for Scotland will be 16 hours of classroom-based or workshop-based programmed learning under the direct guidance of teaching staff and additional hours using structured learning packages supported by teaching staff up to a combined total of 21 hours. For all other courses the rule continues to be that the course must be part time, not full time.

  Students (Social Fund)
  Mr. Byers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is the number of students on courses funded by the European social fund who studied for (i) up to 16 hours a week, (ii) 16 to 21 hours and (iii) 21 hours and above in the latest year for which information is available. [15573]

  Mr. Forth
  The information required is provided in the following table and has been taken from the 1994 final claims. It is provided in a format slightly different from 104
  that requested to prevent any student from being counted twice. Of approximately 1.6 million beneficiaries, the following breakdown is available.

  Hours studied

  Number of beneficiaries1

  Up to 16 hours per week

  400,600

  17–21 hours per week2

  67,100

  More than 21 hours per week3

  923,300

  1 Figures rounded to nearest 100.

  2 Category does not include those studying for 16 hours per week.

  3 Category does not include those studying for 21 hours per week.

  Approximately 200,000 beneficiaries are excluded from the table as the information on number of hours studied could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Departmental Suppliers
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans she has to ensure that her Department identifies the size of its suppliers by the number of their employees. [15608]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The Department for Education and Employment already identifies suppliers with fewer than 200 employees.

  Teachers' Pensions
  Mrs. Peacock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what was the total amount paid in pension contributions(a) by employers of teachers in the public sector and (b) by teachers in Kirklees metropolitan council area. [15875]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The total amounts paid in pension contributions to the teachers superannuation scheme during 1994–95 where £971,009,000 by teachers' employers in England and Wales and £4,166,542 by teachers in the Kirklees metropolitan borough council area.

  Regulatory Bodies
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will list each regulatory body for which she is responsible indicating for each the percentage of business people on the board. [15739]

  Mr. Forth
  The Department does not have responsibility for any regulatory bodies.

  Nursery Vouchers Scheme
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, pursuant to her answer of Thursday 15 February Official Report, column 683, concerning tenders for management of phase 1 of the voucher scheme for early years education, if she will name the two unsuccessful tenderers, and by what amount each tender was above or below that of the successful tender. [16227]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The two unsuccessful tenderers were Childcare Vouchers Ltd. and Energy Action Grants Agency. The tender prices are commercially confidential.
  105

  Travel-to-interview Scheme
  Mr. Garnier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans she has to make changes to the travel-to-work interview scheme. [16300]

  Mr. Forth
  The Employment Service has completed a comprehensive review of the scheme and tested a number of beneficial rule changes. An evaluation has confirmed that the scheme is a cost-effective means of helping unemployed people.

  The main changes, which take effect from 1 April, are:

  the removal of the upper salary limit;

  help with second and subsequent interviews;

  a more realistic interpretation of the condition that the job must be expected to last for 12 months or more;

  help for the majority of self-employed jobs;

  the qualifying period will change from 4 to 13 weeks and people will need to show they are claiming benefit. This supports our aim under the jobseeker's allowance to encourage people still unemployed after this time to widen their job search activities.

  I am confident that the changes better target the scheme on those it is meant to help, making it fairer and simpler to administer.

  A copy of the evaluation report will be placed in the Library.

  Unemployment Statistics
  Mr. McAvoy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many times the method for calculating unemployment statistics has been changed since 1979; and what the current figure for unemployment would be if calculated by the method used in 1979. [14917]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  I have been asked to reply.

  Like many other countries, the UK produces two official measures of unemployment—an administrative measure, referred to as the monthly claimant unemployment count, based on the system for claiming unemployment-related benefits and a survey measure based on the internationally standard International Labour Organisation definition.

  There have been nine changes affecting the coverage of the monthly unemployment claimant count which have been significant enough to warrant a recasting of the consistent seasonally adjusted series. Details are given in the November 1995 edition of "Labour Market Trends".

  The ILO measure of unemployment has been compiled and published on the same definition since 1984—annually 1984 to 1991; quarterly 1992 to date.

  Although the two measures of unemployment are different, they show broadly similar trends.

  Schools (Repairs and Improvements)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) if she will give for 1995–96 the distribution of the moneys allocated for repairs and improvements to schools by education authority and opted-out schools; [15871]
  106
  (2) what amount (a) was made available in 1995–96 and (b) will be made available in 1996–97 to education authorities for repairs and improvements; and what this sum represents per pupil. [15870]

  Mrs. Gillan
  The amounts made available to authorities for improvement work not covered by other priority categories totalled £18.5 million in 1995–96 and £31 million in 1996–97. The 1995–96 amounts distributed by formula to each authority totalled £15 million and are given in the following table. In addition, almost £3.5 million has been allocated for specific projects by supplementary credit approval. For 1996–97, £10 million will be distributed by formula and at least a further £21 million will be available through the schools renewal challenge fund.

  These sums represent over £3 per pupil in 1995–96 and an estimated £5 per pupil in 1996–97 and are additional to the amounts available from capital receipts and other sources of funding at authorities' disposal.

  The distribution of moneys to opted-out schools is a matter for the Funding Agency for Schools. I have asked the chairman of the funding agency to write to the hon. Member.

  1995–96 formula allocations for improvement work to local authorities

  £000

  Barking

  45

  Barnet

  53

  Bexley

  58

  Brent

  48

  Bromley

  60

  Croydon

  78

  Ealing

  298

  Enfield

  57

  Haringey

  111

  Harrow

  82

  Havering

  81

  Hillingdon

  56

  Hounslow

  79

  Kingston

  47

  Merton

  69

  Newham

  102

  Redbridge

  56

  Richmond

  47

  Sutton

  40

  Waltham Forest

  85

  City

  0

  Camden

  51

  Westminster

  13

  Greenwich

  96

  Hackney

  88

  Hammersmith

  32

  Islington

  80

  Kensington

  22

  Lambeth

  112

  Lewisham

  178

  South wark

  56

  Wandsworth

  61

  Tower Hamlets

  88

  Birmingham

  370

  Coventry

  59

  Dudley

  82

  Sandwell

  101

  Solihull

  40

  Walsall

  81

  Wolverhampton

  106

  Knowsley

  113

  Liverpool

  124

  107

  1995–96 formula allocations for improvement work to local authorities

  £000

  St. Helen's

  65

  Sefton

  47

  Wirral

  72

  Bolton

  66

  Bury

  37

  Manchester

  313

  Oldham

  76

  Rochdale

  89

  Salford

  127

  Stockport

  52

  Tameside

  44

  Trafford

  57

  Wigan

  72

  Barnsley

  49

  Doncaster

  63

  Rotherham

  64

  Sheffield

  398

  Bradford

  271

  Calderdale

  48

  Kirklees

  110

  Leeds

  308

  Wakefield

  161

  Gateshead

  45

  Newcastle

  179

  North Tyneside

  78

  South Tyneside

  61

  Sunderland

  65

  Isles of Scilly

  0

  Avon

  226

  Bedfordshire

  109

  Berkshire

  158

  Buckinghamshire

  182

  Cambridgeshire

  174

  Cheshire

  291

  Cleveland

  132

  Cornwall

  152

  Cumbria

  190

  Derbyshire

  298

  Devon

  242

  Dorset

  190

  Durham

  394

  East Sussex

  149

  Essex

  734

  Gloucestershire

  331

  Hampshire

  353

  Hereford

  127

  Hertfordshire

  200

  Humberside

  279

  Isle of Wight

  52

  Kent

  425

  Lancashire

  383

  Leicestershire

  170

  Lincolnshire

  93

  Norfolk

  164

  North Yorkshire

  304

  Northamptonshire

  155

  Northumberland

  67

  Nottinghamshire

  271

  Oxfordshire

  233

  Shropshire

  80

  Somerset

  113

  Staffordshire

  336

  Suffolk

  181

  Surrey

  201

  Warwickshire

  84

  West Sussex

  157

  Wiltshire

  99

  108

TRANSPORT

  Selby By-pass
  Mr. Alison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he estimates contracts for site clearance and other relevant constructional phases for the projected Selby by-pass will be awarded. [16056]

  Mr. Watts
  The inspector's report on the inquiry into a side roads variation order and compulsory purchase order has been received recently and is under consideration. Once the scheme has completed the statutory procedures, it will be taken forward when funding is available for start of works.

  Mr. Alison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will include the projected Selby by-pass in the category of roads to be funded under the private finance for roads initiative. [16055]

  Mr. Watts
  The A63 Selby by-pass is not included in the design, build, finance and operate projects announced by my hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport on 28 February 1995. However, the programme is kept under review. Schemes are considered for inclusion in the programme when they have completed their statutory procedures.

  Mr. Alison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has received the report of the inspector appointed in 1995 to inquire into the proposed compulsory purchase orders for land required for building the Selby by-pass; and if he will make a statement. [16054]

  Mr. Watts
  The inspector's report has been received and is being considered. I cannot say what the outcome will be.

  Public Transport (Privatisation)
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the effects privatisation has had on public authority transport during the past three years. [15685]

  Mr. Norris
  In general, privatisation has led to a more efficient provision of public transport services, responsive through the marketplace to the needs of users.

  Public Transport, Merseyside
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list subsidies made to Merseytravel for the 101 bus service over the last two years; if he will make a statement on the current running of the service; and if he will make a statement. [15776]

  Mr. Norris
  The 101 bus service is fully subsidised by Merseyside passenger transport executive—Merseytravel. Subsidy arrangements, service details and performance on the route are all matters for the PTE, but I understand that the service has recently been re-tendered following previous operating difficulties.

  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to visit Merseyside to discuss the subject of bus services with Merseytravel; and if he will make a statement. [15777]
  109
  Mr. Norris
  I have no such plans at present. I will, however, be discussing bus issues, along with other transport matters, with the North West and Merseyside regional annual consultative committee on 4 March. I understand that Merseytravel will be represented at that meeting.

  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the adequacy of bus services in(a) Liverpool (b) Merseyside at the latest available date; and if he will make a statement. [15744]

  Mr. Norris
  The provision of bus services in Liverpool and Merseyside is entirely a matter for bus operators acting commercially or Merseyside PTE—Merseytravel—using its subsidy powers. I believe that bus travellers there, as in the rest of the country, have benefited from the trend of more operators running more bus miles at lower cost, with new buses on many routes, and significantly less public subsidy than previously.

  A40 (Hangar Lane)
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when the works on the slipway from the east-bound A40 at Hangar lane are expected to be completed; at what cost; and if he will make a statement. [16226]

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

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. Harry Greenway, dated 20 February 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your recent question about works on the slip road from the eastbound A40 to the Hangar Lane Gyratory Junction.
  The eastbound slip road to this junction has become very congested in the past three years and vehicles often queue back onto the main carriageway of the A40. The works are to widen the slip road from two lanes to three at the junction which will ease the traffic flow through the junction.
  Unexpected difficulties with the location and movement of electricity cables and works associated with gas mains have extended the duration of the works. To catch up time the contractor is now working sixteen hours a day. Night-time working is not viewed as a practical option as it would cause considerable noise and disturbance to local residents.
  Unfortunately it is not possible to operate two lanes of traffic on the slip road alongside the works because of the need to provide a safety zone between the traffic and the contractor's workforce. However two lanes have been maintained at the traffic signals during peak periods to ensure that almost the same number of vehicles continue to move through the junction.
  The estimated cost of the works is £80,000 and it is expected that the works will be completed on or very soon after the originally programmed date of 9 March.

  A650
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what are the implications for the A650 Bingley relief road of the withdrawal of the scheme for the A650 Saltaire relief road tunnel; [15919]

  (2) what is the timetable of the private finance initiative for the A650 Bingley relief road with particular reference to tendering, construction and completion dates; [15917]

  (3) what environmental conditions will attach to the contract for the A650 Bingley relief road; [15918]
  110
  (4) what savings he expects for his Department arising out of the A650 Bingley relief road falling under the private finance initiative. [15922]

  Mr. Watts
  [holding answer 19 February 1996]: I have asked the chief executive of the Highways Agency to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. Terry Rooney, dated 20 February 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your recent questions on the A650 Bingley Relief Road.
  You will have seen from the Secretary of State's announcement on the Road Programme on 28 November 1995 that this scheme has been included in the Private Finance Initiative as a further Design, Build, Finance and Operate project.
  Tenders are expected to be invited this Summer with a start on site during the 1997/98 financial year. Completion of the project will be approximately 3 years later.
  Although there are no funds available for the Saltaire Tunnel, the need to continue with the Bingley Relief Road is undiminished.
  All commitments about environmental conditions given in the Environmental Statement, which was published in February 1989, and again at subsequent Public Inquiries, will be included within the contract.
  Design, Build, Finance and Operate has thus far shown to offer value for money when compared with the public sector alternative. Private Finance and management expertise will enable this scheme to be provided more quickly and more efficiently than would have been possible if it had to wait its turn as a publicly financed scheme.

  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what options are available to property owners suffering blight from the aborted A650 Saltaire relief road tunnel. [15921]

  Mr. Watts
  [holding answer 19 February 1996]: The threat of blight has been removed by the withdrawal of the scheme from the trunk road programme.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport which road schemes under the private finance initiative are currently being constructed; and what was the time lag for each from offering for tender to commencement on site. [15923]

  Mr. Watts
  [holding answer 19 February 1996]: No. Design, build, finance and operate road schemes are under construction. Tenders for the first four were invited in January 1995. Construction is expected to start this spring.

  Shipley Eastern Bypass
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to allocate funding for the Shipley eastern bypass. [15920]

  Mr. Watts
  [holding answer 19 February 1996]: Following the recent review of the trunk road programme, this scheme has been placed in the longer-term programme. This category comprises those schemes, which, although required, are not of the highest priority nationally. They will be taken forward only as the main programme is completed.

  Cyclists (Reflective Belts)
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make it his policy to require cyclists to wear Sam Brown reflective belts. [16049]
  111
  Mr. Norris
  My Department takes every opportunity to encourage cyclists to use conspicuity aids. However, I believe that their use should remain a matter of individual choice.

  YAK 42 Aircraft
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many YAK 42s are currently registered to fly into United Kingdom airports; and what was the date of manufacture of each of these aircraft. [16081]

  Mr. Norris
  No YAK 42 aircraft are currently covered by the operating permits granted by the Department to foreign airlines.

  Buses and Coaches
  Sir Roger Moate
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the level of investment in new buses and coaches since deregulation and privatisation; and what was the number of new vehicles ordered each year. [15838]

  Mr. Norris
  Decisions on the level of investment in new vehicles are a matter for bus and coach companies themselves. Information on the number of orders for new vehicles is not available, but the number of buses and coaches registered for the first time is available from data recorded by the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency. The list gives figures since 1985:Number of buses and coaches with nine or more passenger seats registered for the first time.1

  1985: 3,747

  1986: 5,479

  1987: 5,015

  1988: 4,970

  1989: 5,081

  1990: 4,547

  1991: 3,016

  1992: 3,051

  1993: 3,643

  1994: 4,202

  1995: 5,214

  1Up to end June 1995 vehicles are those in taxation class 35—Hackney. From 1 July 1995 vehicles are those in taxation class 34—Bus. Both these taxation classes cover the use of vehicles for public transportation.

  Rail Ticketing Agreement
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 14 February 1996,Official Report, column 574, how many young people are employed by Rail Settlement Plan Ltd. to police the ticketing and settlement agreement. [15909]

  Mr. Watts
  Rail Settlement Plan Ltd. employs the equivalent of 95 full-time staff, under contract from British Rail Business Systems, to provide independent auditing and monitoring of compliance with the terms of the ticketing and settlement agreement.

  Central Railway
  Mr. Pawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent consultations have taken place 112
  between his Department and Central Railway plc; and what evaluation his Department has undertaken of its proposals. [15832]

  Mr. Watts
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State met Central Railway plc on 17 January as part of a continuing dialogue between the company and the Department on procedural aspects of the Transport and Works Act 1992. The Department has undertaken no evaluation of the proposals, but has made comments on initial drafts provided by the company of certain application documents in the context of the statutory requirements.

  Newbury Bypass
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if the company Reliance employed by the Highways Agency for work on the Newbury bypass has carried out checks on staff for previous criminal convictions. [15295]

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

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. Mike Gapes, dated 20 February 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your recent question asking if the company Reliance Security Services Limited employed by the Highways Agency for work on the Newbury Bypass has carried out checks on staff for previous criminal convictions.
  Reliance are not employed by the Highways Agency. They are employed by the site clearance contractor. It is a requirement of the Highways Agency that sub-contracted security companies are members of the British Security Industry Association and meet British Standard 7499 covering static guards and mobile patrols.
  I understand that to comply with these requirements, Reliance policy is to make detailed checks for criminal convictions going back five years before they employ someone. A further check going back 10 years is then made within three months of employment.

  Railway Franchises
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many persons are employed by the rail franchising director to check the bona fides of franchise applicants. [15161]

  Mr. Watts
  A number of staff at the Office of Passenger Rail Franchising and merchant bank advisers employed by the franchising director check the bona fides of franchise applicants through various procedures at the pre-qualification stage and throughout the tendering process.

  Ashford Station (Wheelchairs)
  Mr. Tom Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he has taken to ensure that the operators of Ashford international railway station provide(a) a ticket office window at a height convenient for wheelchair using passengers and (b) means of independent access by wheelchair users to the carriages of trains using the station. [14454]

  Mr. Watts
  We have no powers to require European Passenger Services to make modifications to Ashford international or to the trains which serve it. In the longer term, the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 will enable
  113
  us to set access standards for new rail vehicles and to address the accessibility of railway stations. We have already begun discussions with the rail industry.

  In the meantime, I understand the EPS worked closely with disabled people and I think that is borne out by the generally high standard of access which is provided.

  The company took advice specifically on the design of the ticket counter and concluded that the particular design of desk provided met the needs of both wheelchair users and other passengers. The arrangements for access to the trains at Ashford are the same as those provided at Waterloo international and on other parts of the InterCity network. They have been shown, over a number of years, to work satisfactorily.

  Railway Group Safety Plan
  Mr. Mark Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he has received the Railway group safety plan for 1996–97; and if he will make a statement. [16240]

  Mr. Watts
  The Railtrack board has now submitted a 1996–97 safety plan for Britain's national railway network. Copies have been placed in the Library.

  The plan sets out strategic safety objectives for 1996–97, reports safety performance by British Rail and Railtrack in 1995–96, and gives details of the arrangements for managing safety on the railway.

  All current train operators have had their railway safety cases accepted, a process which relies on an adequate demonstration of commitment and competence by the companies. New operators will need to satisfy the same rigorous scrutiny. The plan is an important companion to these safety cases. It sets a number of objectives designed to maintain safety performance and provide strategic direction to initiatives to improve safety.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Housing
  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland which corporate bodies have been specified as a relevant body under article 3(3) of the Housing (NI) Order 1986. [15147]

  Mr. Moss
  None.

  Employment Tribunals
  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many cases have been heard by fair employment tribunals. [15148]

  Mr. Ancram
  A total of 203 cases have been heard up to 31 January 1996.

  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many appeals there have been in respect of cases heard by fair employment tribunals. [15149]

  Mr. Ancram
  There have been 11 appeals up to 31 January 1996.
  114

  Agriculture Payments
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) how many payments he expects to be made in Northern Ireland in 1995–96 for set-aside between(a) £0 and £5,000, (b) £5,001 and £10,000, (c) £10,001 and £15,000, (d) £15,001 and £20,000, (e) £20,001 and £25,000 and (f) over £25,001; [15319]

  (2) how many payments were made in Northern Ireland in 1994–95 under the arable area payments scheme (a) between £0 and £5,000, (b) £5,001 and £10,000, (c) £10,001 and £15,000, (d) £15,001 and £20,000, (e) £20,001 and £25,000, (f) £25,001 and £50,000, (g) £50,001 and £75,000, (h) £75,001 and £100,000 and (i) £100,001 and over; [15337]

  (3) how many payments were made in Northern Ireland in 1994–95 for set-aside between (a) £0 and £5,000, (b) £5,001 and £10,000, (c) £10,001 and £15,000 and (d) over £15,001; [15318]

  (4) how many payments he expects to be made in Northern Ireland in 1995–96 under the arable area payments scheme between (a) £0 and £5,000, (b) £5,001 and £10,000, (c) £10,001 and £15,000, (d) £15,001 and £20,000, (e) £20,001 and £25,000, (f) £25,001 and £50,000, (g) £50,001 and £75,000, (h) £75,001 and £100,000, (i) £100,001 and £150,000, (j) £150,001 and £200,000, and (k) £200,001 and over. [15338]

  Mr. Ancram
  The information is as follows:

  Set-aside scheme—Northern Ireland

  Set-aside

  Arable-area payments

  £

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1994–95

  1995–96

  0–5,000

  194

  184

  2,767

  2,828

  5,001–10,000

  16

  14

  96

  62

  10,000–15,000

  —

  1

  47

  55

  15,001–20,000

  —

  —

  10

  34

  20,001–25,000

  —

  —

  6

  22

  25,001–50,000

  —

  —

  8

  18

  50,001–75,000

  —

  —

  —

  2

  75,001–100,000

  —

  —

  —

  —

  100,000–150,000

  —

  —

  —

  —

  150,001–200,000

  —

  —

  —

  —

  200,001–and over

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Students
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many higher education students who have temporarily withdrawn from their courses due to ill health have benefited from the revised guidelines issued by the Department of Education for Northern Ireland to the education and library boards in July 1995. [15293]

  Mr. Ancram
  None.

  Departmental Suppliers
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to ensure that his Department identifies the size of its suppliers by the number of their employees. [15603]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The majority of suppliers in Northern Ireland are small and medium-sized enterprises.
  115
  However, any supplier seeking business through the Government purchasing service is asked to complete a supplier questionnaire as part of the tendering process. One of the requirements of the questionnaire is that all firms give details of the average annual manpower and number of managerial staff employed over the past three years.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what strain typing studies his Department is currently funding into BSE cases; and what plans he has to extend them to cover cases of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease. [7214]

  Mrs. Browning
  This Department is currently funding the following strain typing study of BSE, at the neuropathogenisis unit, Edinburgh:"Strain typing of BSE pathogen in mice and comparison with strains from natural sheep scrapie".

  Responsibility for funding research into cases of CJD falls to the Department of Health.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what research he has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated into the possibility of domesticated animals other than bovines developing spongiform encephalopathy. [7233]

  Mrs. Browning
  The Department has commissioned a number of pieces of work to look at the transmission of BSE to other domesticated species; work has also been done independently. This work has shown that sheep, goats and mink develop spongiform encephalopathy when fed with brain from cattle clinically affected with BSE.

  (1) Cash (mecu1)

  1980

  1985

  1990

  1995

  (i) Export refunds

  5,695

  6,716

  7,798

  7,803

  (ii) Intervention buying and storage

  1,631

  4,440

  5,477

  338

  (iii) Arable area payment schemes

  1,252

  3,694

  9,038

  (13,491)

  (iv) Other direct payments2(to farmers)

  23,009(8,409)

  (v) Production aids (paid via processors)

  (1,109)

  (vi) Removing produce from the market (withdrawals and similar operations)

  298

  894

  648

  564

  Notes:

  For expenditure prior to the CAP Reform of 1992, there is no breakdown of arable area scheme; payments, other direct payments and production aids and these have been group together.

  1 1980 expenditure is in millions of European Units of Account.

  2 Excludes some direct payments to farmers which are subsumed under CAP programmes for remote regions.

  Sources:

  1980, 1985, 1990 Annual FEOGA Financial Reports, 1995 Commission Working document VI/72/95 (12 December 95).

  1996 Prices calculated using deflator of private consumption. Source: European Economy—Annual Economic Report.

  1995 No. 59 and European Economy (Supplement A) Economic trends No. 12 December 1995.

  (2) At 1996 Prices (mecu1)

  1980

  1985

  1990

  1995

  (i) Export refunds

  13,463

  10,363

  9,810

  8,037

  (ii) Intervention buying and storage

  3,856

  6,851

  6,890

  348

  (iii) Arable area payment schemes

  —

  —

  —

  (13,896)

  (iv) Other direct payments2(to farmers)

  2,960

  5,700

  11,370

  23,699 (8,661)

  (v) Production aids (paid via processors)

  —

  —

  —

  (1,142)

  116
  Pigs have succumbed when BSE infected brain has been injected intra-cerebrally but not when fed infected brain. The only domesticated species in which BSE type disease has occurred naturally, rather than being experimentally induced, is the cat.

  All species of animals and poultry are protected against the risk of infection with BSE by the ban on the use of specified bovine offals in feed, which was introduced in September 1990.

  Animal Health Officers
  Mr. Marlow
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many animal health officers are paid for by his Department; what is their cost; and what was the equivalent figure in 1990. [15745]

  Mrs. Browning
  At 1 January 1996, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food employed 137.1 animal health officers and 29 senior animal health officers. Based on 1995–96 standard salary costs, this amounted to a total cost of £3,463,002 per annum.

  At 1 January 1990, there were 135.5 animal health officers and 46 senior animal health officers. Applying Treasury GDP deflator dated November 1993 to the 1995–96 standard salary costs, this amounts to a total cost of £3,052,032 per annum.

  Common Agricultural Policy Budget
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much of the total(a) 1980, (b) 1985, (c) 1990 and (d) 1995 CAP budgets in ecus was spent on (i) export refunds, (ii) intervention buying and storage, (iii) arable area payment schemes, (iv) other direct payments, (v) production aids and (vi) removing produce from the market (1) in cash, (2) at 1996 prices and (3) as a percentage of the total CAP budget. [15341]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The information is as follows:
  117

  (2) At 1996 Prices (mecu1)

  1980

  1985

  1990

  1995

  (vi) Removing produce from the market (withdrawals and similar operations)

  704

  1,379

  815

  581

  Notes:

  For expenditure prior to the CAP Reform of 1992, there is no breakdown of arable area scheme; payments, other direct payments and production aids and these have been group together.

  1 1980 expenditure is in millions of European Units of Account.

  2 Excludes some direct payments to farmers which are subsumed under CAP programmes for remote regions.

  Sources:

  1980, 1985, 1990 Annual FEOGA Financial Reports, 1995 Commission Working document VI/72/95 (12 December 95).

  1996 Prices calculated using deflator of private consumption. Source: European Economy—Annual Economic Report.

  1995 No. 59 and European Economy (Supplement A) Economic trends No. 12 December 1995.

  (3) As percentage of total CAP expenditure

  1980

  1985

  1990

  1995

  (i) Export refunds

  50.3

  34.0

  28.8

  22.6

  (ii) Intervention buying and storage

  14.4

  22.5

  20.3

  1.0

  (iii) Arable area payment schemes

  —

  —

  —

  (39.1)

  (iv) Other direct payments1 (to farmers)

  11.1

  18.7

  33.4

  66.7 (24.4)

  (v) Production aids (paid via processors)

  —

  —

  —

  (3.2)

  (vi) Removing produce from the market (withdrawals and similar operations)

  2.6

  4.5

  2.4

  1.8

  Notes:

  For expenditure prior to the CAP Reform of 1992, there is no breakdown of arable area scheme; payments, other direct payments and production aids and these have been group together.

  1 Excludes some direct payments to farmers which are subsumed under CAP programmes for remote regions.

  Sources:

  1980, 1985, 1990 Annual FEOGA Financial Reports, 1995 Commission Working document VI/72/95 (12 December 95).

  1996 Prices calculated using deflator of private consumption. Source: European Economy—Annual Economic Report.

  1995 No. 59 and European Economy (Supplement A) Economic trends No. 12 December 1995.

  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much of the total 1996 CAP budget, in ecus, will be spent on(a) export refunds, (b) intervention buying and storage, (c) arable area payment schemes, (d) other direct payments, (e) production aids and (f) removing produce from the market (i) in cash and (ii) as a percentage of the total CAP budget. [15340]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The 1996 budget provisions are as follows:

  1996

  (i) mecu

  (ii) As percentage of total CAP budget

  (a) Export refunds

  7,182

  17.4

  (b) Intervention buying and storage

  1,278

  3.1

  (c) Arable area payments

  15,545

  37.6

  (d) Other direct payments1 (to farmers)

  11,983

  29.3

  (e) Production aids (paid via processors)

  1,139

  2.8

  (f) Removing produce from the market (withdrawals and similar operations)

  790

  1.9

  Note:1 Excludes some direct payments to farmers which are ubsumed under CAP programmes for remote regions.

  Source:

  1996 Adopted Budget of the European Union, (Official Journal L22, Volume 39 of 29 January 1996).

  Arable Area Payments Scheme
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many payments(a) were made in England in 1994–95 and (b) he expects to be made in 1995–96 under the arable area payments scheme between (i) £0 and £5,000, (ii) £5,001 and £10,000, (iii) £10,001
  118
  and £15,000, (iv) £15,001 and £20,000, (v) £20,001 and £25,000, (vi) £25,001 and £50,000, (vii) £50,001 and £75,000, (viii) £75,001 and £100,000, (xi) £100,001 and £150,000, (x) £150,001 and £200,000, (xi) £200,001 and £250,000, (xii) £250,001 and £300,000, (xiii) £300,001 and £350,000, (xiv) £350.001 and £400,000, (xv) £400,001 and £450,000, (xvi) £450,001 and £500,000, (xvii) £500,000 and £999,999 and (xviii) £1 million and over. [15320]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The distribution by size of total payments made against claims in 1994–95 under the arable area payments scheme is as follows. Similar figures are not yet available for 1995–96 as the final oilseeds payments and some payments on non-food set-aside for the year have not yet been made.

  Total payments in England banded by size of payment

  Size band

  Number of payments

  £0 and £5,000

  19,078

  £5,001 and £10,000

  6,140

  £10,001 and £15,000

  4,761

  £15,001 and £20,000

  3,432

  £20,001 and £25,000

  2,496

  £25,001 and £50,000

  6,289

  £50,001 and £75,000

  2,200

  £75,001 and £100,000

  978

  £100,001 and £150,000

  694

  £150,001 and £200,000

  223

  £200,001 and £250,000

  95

  £250,001 and £300,000

  32

  £300,001 and £350,000

  15

  £350,001 and £400,000

  9

  £400,001 and £450,000

  12

  £450,001 and £500,000

  3

  £500,000 and over

  113

  1 It is not possible to identify separately the number of payments above £1,000,000 for reasons of confidentiality.

  119

  Set-aside Payments
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many payments(a) were made in England in 1994–95 and (b) he expects to be made in England in 1995–96 for set-aside of between (i) £0 and £5,000, (ii) £5,001 and £10,000, (iii) £10,001 and £15,000, (iv) £15,001 and £20,000, (v) £20,001 and £25,000, (vi) £25,001 and £50,000, (vii) £50,001 and £75,000, (viii) £75,001 and £100,000, (ix) £100,001 and £150,000, (x) £150,001 and £200,000, (xi) £200,001 and £250,000, (xii) £250,001 and £300,000, (xiii) £300,001 and £350,000, (xiv) £350,001 and £400,000, (xv) £400,001 and £450,000, (xvi) £450,001 and £500,000 and (xvii) over £500,000. [15334]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  The distribution by size of payments made against claims in 1994–95 for set-aside is as follows. Similar figures are not yet available for 1995–96 as not all payments have been made where non-food crops have been grown on set-aside land.

  Total payments in England banded by size of payment

  Size band

  Number of payments

  (i) £0 and £5000

  17,738

  (ii) £5,001 and £10,000

  6,708

  (iii) £10,001 and £15,000

  2,284

  (iv) £15,001 and £20,000

  1,040

  (v) £20,001 and £25,000

  467

  (vi) £25,001 and £50,000

  564

  (vii) £50,001 and £75,000

  62

  (viii) £75,001 and £100,000

  24

  (ix) £100,000 and over

  18

  1 It is not possible to identify separately the number of payments above £150,000 for reasons of confidentiality.

  Sheep and Goats
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture. Fisheries and Food what estimates he has made of the number of eartags on sheep which are likely to(a) become illegible and (b) be lost in the space of a 12 month period. [15579]

  Mrs. Browning
  None. There was no need for such an estimate given our intention only to require sheep that are consigned for transport outside Great Britain to be either eartagged or tattooed.

  Mr. Prentice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate he has made of the number and percentage of sheep in the United Kingdom that are tattooed. [15577]

  Mrs. Browning
  None.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimates he has made of the number of people who keep(a) sheep and (b) goats. [15622]

  Mrs. Browning
  We estimated that there are 92,398 sheep holdings and 7,730 goat holdings in England and Wales. This information is contained in the compliance cost assessment and is based on information contained in "The Digest of Agricultural Census Statistics" in 1992.

  Mr. Prentice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what consultation he had with local authorities concerning the staffing and other resources that 120
  will have to be committed by them to enforce the Sheep and Goats (Records, Identification and Movement) Order 1996. [15582]

  Mrs. Browning
  A representative from the national animal health and welfare panel of the local authorities sits on the specially formed industry/Government working group which considered the proposals for the Sheep and Goats (Records, Identification and Movement) Order 1996.

  Mr. Prentice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what consultations have taken place with organisations representing sheep and goat farmers about the assumptions his Department made in respect of the likely costs of complying with the Sheep and Goats (Records, Identification and Movement) Order 1996. [15757]

  Mrs. Browning
  We consulted the industry regularly on our proposals for the implementation of EC directive 92/102, including for sheep and goats. Views were specifically sought in June 1994 on a draft of the compliance cost assessment.

  Mr. Prentice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for what reasons the statistical information used in the compliance costs assessment for the Sheep and Goats (Records, Identification and Movement) Order 1996 was drawn from 1992 publications. [15756]

  Mrs. Browning
  A draft compliance cost assessment was issued for comment in 1994 based on the latest complete statistical information available. It was not felt that circumstances had changed to such an extent that a revised CCA based on later figures would be justified.

  Live Animal Exports
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many of his veterinary officers and technical assistants were involved on(a) 13 February and (b) 14 February in lairages near Dover in inspecting animals to ensure that they were fit to travel under the Welfare of Animals during Transport Order 1994 and to deal with other related matters. [16155]

  Mrs. Browning
  On 13 February there were three veterinary officers, one temporary veterinary inspector and eight technical staff present.

  On 14 February there were five veterinary officers, one temporary veterinary inspector and nine technical staff present.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many consignments on 13 and 14 February were inspected by his veterinary officers and technical assistants; how many(a) sheep and (b) calves were inspected; how many hours were spent in carrying out the inspections; and if he will make a statement. [16156]

  Mrs. Browning
  On 13 February there were five consignments of sheep totalling 1,805 sheep and seven consignments of calves totalling 828 calves. Ministry staff were present at Dover lairages from 0900 on 13 February until 0130 on 14 February.
  121
  On 14 February there was one consignment of sheep totalling 405 sheep and eight consignments of calves totalling 1,165 calves. Ministry staff were present at lairages from 0730 on 14 February until 1700 on 14 February.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Private Pensions
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people now have the rights to a private pension. [14363]

  Mr. Heald
  The latest estimates are that there are more than 20 million people in the country with rights to an occupational pension, and more than 8 million personal pensions. In 1993, the total value of funds in occupational and personal pensions was approaching £600 billion.

  Mr. Peter Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the total sum invested in funded private pensions in the United Kingdom; and what are the equivalent figures in other EU member states. [14369]

  Mr. Heald
  In 1993, the total value of funds in funded pension schemes in the United Kingdom was nearly £600 billion. This is substantially more than the latest estimate of £480 billion for all the other countries in the European Union.

  Table B: Rebates to appropriate personal pension schemes from 1988–89 to 1993–94

  £ million

  Amount of rebate

  Year

  Primary (Employee)

  Secondary (Employer)

  Total

  Cumulative total

  1988–89

  99

  190

  289

  289

  1989–90

  587

  1,116

  1,703

  1,992

  1990–91

  504

  958

  1,462

  3,454

  1991–92

  600

  1,139

  1,739

  5,193

  1992–93

  654

  1,243

  1,897

  7,090

  1993–94

  707

  1,344

  2,051

  9,141

  Notes:

  1. 1993–94 is the latest year for which published audited accounts are available.

  2. The table shows the cost of providing relief (rebates) from employers' national insurance contributions and for completeness, the cost of providing rebates on the employees' contribution as well as the overall total cost.

  3. The figures showing the "Total" cost are taken from the published audited accounts of the national insurance fund, and show the amount of rebates paid over to providers of APPs in each of the relevant tax years up to and including 1993–94. The breakdown between the "Employee" and the "Employer" has been estimated by the Government Actuary's Department.

  4. These rebates (along with any income tax relief, incentives and appropriate additions) are paid over to the pension providers in arrears following the end of the tax year in which the relevant earnings were paid.

  Source:

  Government Actuary's Department based on national insurance fund accounts.

  Occupational and Private Pensions
  Mr. David Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment he has made of the effect that reduced equity investment yields would have on occupational and private pensions. [14364]

  Mr. Heald
  Around three fifths of the £600 billion invested in UK pension funds is held in domestic equities. The yield on those investments has been, on average, 10 per cent. in real terms since 1980. All things being equal,
  122
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of(a) the savings to the Exchequer from the take-up of personal pension schemes and (b) the cost to the Exchequer of providing relief from employers' national insurance on contributions made by employers to pension schemes for their work force. [14668]

  Mr. Heald
  [holding answer 12 February 1996]: The information is in the tables:

  Table A: Estimated savings in SERPS expenditure in respect of appropriate personal pension scheme rebates for 1987–88 to 1992–93

  £ million

  Decade

  Savings

  Cumulative savings

  2002–09

  250

  250

  2010–19

  2,350

  2,600

  2020–29

  5,300

  7,900

  2030–39

  7,200

  15,100

  2040–49

  4,500

  19,600

  2050–59

  1,900

  21,500

  2060–69

  500

  22,000

  Source:

  Government Actuary's Department.

  Notes:

  1. The estimated savings are expressed in 1993–94 price terms.

  2. Appropriate personal pension—APPs—have been available since April 1988, but earners were allowed to backdate their minimum contributions based on earnings for the previous tax year, as 1987–88. The estimated savings in the table relate to the SERPS that would have become payable in respect of earnings between April 1988 and March 1993, if those who took out an APP between those dates had not done so.

  3. An increase in real earnings of 1½ per cent. has been assumed in these calculations.

  any reduction in yield would mean that members would retire with lower pensions or that they and their employers would have to contribute more.

  Identity Cards
  Mr. Batiste
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if the proposed Social Security identity card will bear a photograph of the owner and have a memory capacity. [14365]
  123
  Mr. Lilley
  The social security benefit payment card will replace order books and girocheques.

  We are still in the process of deciding which of the systems proposed by the shortlisted suppliers offers the best security and other features. It is unlikely that a photograph will be used since other features offer more satisfactory means of identification. The initial version of the card may not use microchip technology, but the service provider must provide for upgrading to smart cards in the future, if that is required.

  Disabled People
  Dr. Michael Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what recent representations he has received about the Government's policies for disabled people. [14366]

  Mr. Burt
  I have received many representations by and on behalf of disabled people, particularly about the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. I recently received about 180 nominations for membership of the National Disability Council and I am indebted to a variety of individuals, as well as voluntary and business organisations, for providing such an impressive selection of candidates.

  Cold Weather Payments
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many cold weather payments were made in January. [14367]

  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on cold weather payments. [14368]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  More than 2 million payments were made in January. So far this winter, more than 7 million payments, worth more than £62 million, have been made.

  The current arrangements are responsive and focused on the most vulnerable groups, with automatic payments when there is a sustained period of very cold weather.

  In consultation with the Meteorological Office, postcode areas are linked to one of 55 weather stations throughout the country which are best judged to represent the local climate. The effectiveness of the weather station links are reviewed annually and changes made where appropriate.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has received from local authority associations regarding proposals to remove benefits from asylum applicants. [14370]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The local authority associations were consulted about the benefit changes affecting asylum seekers. Responses were received from the Association of District Councils, the Association of Metropolitan Authorities and the Association of London Government.

  Campbell's Soups
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what data the Department retains 124
  as to the take up of benefits payable to claimants in Maryport arising out of the closure of the Campbell's Soups Homepride plant. [14372]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  None.

  Housing Benefit Fraud
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what measures he is taking to tackle housing benefit fraud. [14373]

  Mr. Heald
  Later this year, I will introduce a central computer record to cross-check claims. I have earmarked £8 million for challenge funding to encourage innovation in fighting fraud, and in April I will strengthen the financial incentives for local authorities to pursue fraud. I have work in hand on a strategy to stop fraud getting into the system. We are already working with the Audit Commission on better checking of housing benefit applications.

  Benefit Reforms
  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what reforms of the benefit system he is planning in order to help unemployed people back to work. [14374]

  Mr. Evans
  We are introducing three measures in April: a four-week extension of housing benefit to smooth the transition into work; a "holiday" from national insurance contributions for employers taking on those who have been unemployed for more than two years; and an increase in the childcare disregard in family credit and disability working allowance from £40 to £60 per week.

  From October, the back-to-work bonus will provide a lump sum payment for those leaving job seekers allowance or income support who have worked part-time and we will be piloting the earnings top-up scheme to help those without dependent children.

  Child Benefit
  Mr. Barry Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he plans to reform child benefit. [14375]

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  I have no plans to reform child benefit other than through legislation already announced in clause 10 of the Asylum and Immigration Bill, and in draft regulations to restructure child and one-parent benefit. The regulations are currently the subject of consultation. I would expect these proposals to become law later this year, subject to parliamentary approval.

  Benefit Claims
  Mr. Bill Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment he has made of how(a) income support and (b) other claims are assessed. [14377]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  There are many ways in which the handling of benefit claims are assessed for accuracy, quality and timeousness. The Secretary of State sets the
  125
  Benefits Agency targets for accuracy and speed of assessment which are reported annually in the agency business plan and accounts. There is independent monitoring of accuracy by the National Audit Office and of adjudication standards by the chief adjudication officer.

  Child Support
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many women currently receive less in child support than their husband or partners pay to the Child Support Agency; and if he will make a statement. [14379]

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  Payments of child maintenance made by absent parents to the Child Support Agency are passed on to parents with care unless retained to be offset against current or past payments of income support to the parent with care. Information on the total number of cases where payments are retained could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Michael Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what provision is made to ensure that absent parents who have incurred a deduction from earnings order from the Child Support Agency are left with sufficient income on which to live. [14914]

  Mr. Mitchell
  The deduction from earnings order sent to an employer, in cases where there is either a full or an interim maintenance assessment, includes an amount below which earnings should not be reduced because of the child support payment.

  Disability Living Allowance
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people with(a) learning disabilities and (b) mental health problems are expected to have their disability living allowance mobility component (i) reduced or (ii) withdrawn when in hospital in (x) 1996–97, (y) 1997–98 and (z) 1998–99. [11997]

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  [holding answer 26 January 1996]: The information is not available in the format requested. It is estimated that, between 1996 and 1999, some 20,000 to 25,000 people with a learning disability or mental health problem will have their disability living allowance mobility component reduced or withdrawn when in hospital.

  Note:

  These estimates are provisional and subject to change.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment he has made of the impact of his proposal for the removal of the mobility component of disability living allowance on the ability of long-stay patients in hospitals and homes for the mentally ill to re-establish themselves in the community; and if he will make a statement. [14072]

  Mr. Mitchell
  The proposals concern payability of, rather than entitlement to, the mobility component of disability living allowance. Provided the conditions of entitlement continued to be met, payment would be reinstated on a person's discharge from hospital. Payments would also be made at a daily rate for short periods of hospital leave.
  126

  Pension Miscalculations
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many women he estimates will have their pension payments reduced as a result of the miscalculation of their entitlement to their deceased husband's private and state earnings-related pension; what estimate he has made of the overpayment to date; and if he will make a statement. [14754]

  Mr. Heald
  It is estimated that around 12,000 widows will have their benefits reduced. The total overpayment is estimated at £7.5 million. The exact figures will be known only when the examination of all cases is completed at the end of March.

  We will not be seeking to recover the overpayment.

  Note:

  The estimates are derived from a 1 per cent. sample of the national insurance recording system database.

  Income Support
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many men aged 55 to 64 years received income support at the present time; and what was the equivalent figure for supplementary benefit in 1979. [14348]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The latest information shows that 334,000 men aged 55 to 64 receive income support. The equivalent figure for 1979 was 116,000.

  Notes:

  1. Source: Supplementary benefit annual statistical inquiry 1979 and the February 1995 income support quarterly inquiry.

  2. All figures have been rounded to the nearest thousand.

  Pensioner Couples
  Dr. Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what help from public funds is available to a pensioner couple with no outside income; and if he will make a statement. [14376]

  Mr. Heald
  We have a comprehensive structure of benefits to support pensioner couples. This ensures that they have access to an income of more than £100 a week.

  We have comprehensive structure of benefits to support pensioner couples. It includes the state retirement pension, an attendance allowance for disabled pensioners and income-related benefits such as income support and housing benefit for pensioners on a low income. Our measures ensure that pensioner couples have access to income of more than £100 a week.

  Departmental Suppliers
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to ensure that his Department identifies the size of its suppliers by the number of their employees. [15596]

  Mr. Burt
  The Department of Social Security's procedural guidelines on procurement require that potential suppliers to the Department are asked to provide information about the size of their work force.
  127

  Regulatory Bodies
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list each regulatory body for which he is responsible indicating for each the percentage of business people on the board. [15738]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The Department of Social Security has responsibility for only one regulatory authority—the 128
  Occupational Pensions Board, OPB. Under the terms of the Pension Schemes Act 1993, the OPB is required to consist of a chairman, a deputy chairman and not fewer than eight nor more than 12 other members, one of whom is required to be appointed after consultation with organisations representative of employers. Of the current total membership of 14, 12–85 per cent.—are business people.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Chester.

"Pogs" and Children's Safety
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are satisfied that the small toys, known as "Pogs", are safe for small children when included with foodstuffs in packets.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie): My Lords, toy safety regulations require that all toys supplied in the United Kingdom must be safe—even those given away free with other products. We have no evidence that any of the "Pogs" currently on the market do not comply with safety legislation; nor are we aware of any incidents of young people mistaking the "Pogs" supplied with food for a foodstuff.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble and learned friend for that reassuring reply. He and other noble Lords are no doubt familiar with the small discs bearing pictures of imaginary characters now being voraciously collected by children. Is my noble and learned friend aware of reports that large quantities are soon to be launched in rival packets of cereals and crisps, and that the British Safety Council is worried that small children could choke on them? In fact, a Pog in the throat might be dangerous—certainly more so than a frog in the throat.
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, my noble friend has the advantage of me. Until I prepared for this Question I had no idea what a Pog was. It is a small cardboard disc not unlike those that used to be found on the tops of milk bottles. Their size is such that it is not seriously considered that there should be any risk to young people who intentionally or inadvertently put them into their mouths. The Pog complies with legislation. I am very much aware that remarkable quantities of Pogs are circulating. It is anticipated that there will be around half a billion of them in the country in the course of the next year.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, can the Minister say whether the matter has been examined by the consumer safety unit of the DTI and, if so, what is the unit's view? As it is a matter of consumer safety, can he tell us whether there are plans to change the unit—its standards, the scope of its work or its size, or by farming out its work in any manner?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, regulations were made in 1995. Pogs have been measured against the requirements of those regulations. It has been
968
established that all those that have come to the attention of the DTI—the large numbers in crisp packets and cereal packets—are too large to fail to comply with the regulations. That being so, I do not think there is any further requirement for adjustment within the DTI.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, can the Minister answer the second part of my question about the future of the consumer safety unit?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I do not think I can. I am not quite sure how it arises on Pogs.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, as my noble and learned friend probably knows, a game can be played with Pogs requiring an additional slammer disc. Are the Government concerned about the safety of this sharp metal disc which is already the subject of a toy safety warning from at least one trading standards department?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, I am now aware what a slammer is. All the slammers I have seen are plastic. When I consider the objects which small children throw at each other, this is probably one of the most harmless I have ever seen.

Maxwell Case: Costs
2.41 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter Lord Boyd-Carpenter asked Her Majesty's Government:
What was the total cost to public funds of the recent prosecution of the Maxwell brothers and Mr. Trachtenberg.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, it is too early to say what the total cost of the case will be. As far as criminal legal aid is concerned, the full costs will be known only when the final bills have been taxed. However, £8.3 million has been paid to date in respect of interim payments and the magistrates' court proceedings. The total cost to the courts to date has been assessed at £0.5 million. The cost to the Serious Fraud Office, including investigation of matters that will form the basis of future proposed trials, was approximately £11 million as at 31st January 1996.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I thank my noble and learned friend for that extremely interesting if disquieting information. Can he say whether steps are being taken to restrain the very substantial growth in the cost of legal proceedings, particularly prosecutions of this kind, whether successful or, as in the case quoted in my Question, unsuccessful?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, every effort is made to deal with these matters as efficiently as possible. In the particular case to which my noble friend's Question relates, the degree of complexity involved was very high indeed. The method by which such matters should be dealt with is kept under review

969
by the Government. In the light of their history further consideration may require to be given to the manner in which such cases are pursued.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord agree that it appears that people brought before the courts charged with fraud on a huge scale seem to take a disproportionate share of the money available for legal aid as opposed to people involved in other nefarious activities? Does he agree that it is time that this matter was looked at? At the moment legal aid appears to be a fund for people who have already received large sums of money through their actions and who seem to be able to obtain legal aid more easily than other people.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, it is perhaps right that the kind of case to which the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, refers will involve a high degree of complexity and will therefore attract more in the way of resources both for the prosecution and defence. As regards the rules, they are the same for all. It is in an attempt to make sure that they are rigorously enforced that I made the proposals in relation to legal aid for the apparently wealthy.
Lord Wyatt of Weeford: My Lords, is it not the case that the success rate in fraud matters is very low when conducted by the Serious Fraud Office? Is it not time that another body took over those prosecutions—perhaps the police?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I gave the details of this matter in Answer to a Question from the noble Lord, Lord Spens, not very long ago. My impression is that the success rate of the Serious Fraud Office in relation to disputed matters is comparable to that of the Crown Prosecution Service. One must take account of the fact that the subject matter is different between the two. If the noble Lord looks at the figures he will see that the success rate of the Serious Fraud Office in these matters bears quite good comparison with other such figures.
Lord Clark of Kempston: My Lords, in view of the fact that the case has already cost the British taxpayer something approaching £20 million, does my noble and learned friend agree that it is high time that the rules concerning the .award of legal aid should be changed to the extent that the circumstances of the immediate family of the applicant for legal aid should be taken into account? Can my noble and learned friend confirm that the Saudi Arabian who is appealing against a deportation order will not be entitled to legal aid?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, there are two questions. As regards the second, the person concerned will be entitled to legal aid only if he complies with the rules. In relation to the first question, it is not just a matter of legal aid, but of the costs of the prosecution and the defence. In the circumstances of the particular case to which we are referring, and in view of the outcome, even if the defendants had not been given legal
970
aid it is highly likely that they would have been awarded their costs out of central funds. Therefore, legal aid is not directly relevant in this particular situation.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, can the noble and learned Lord assist perhaps by putting the matter into context? What was the amount of money disbursed from public funds for legal assistance and representation to those who appeared before the Scott tribunal? Can he offer a view as to which disbursement of public money was the best value?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I do not have the full figures in my head at the moment regarding that matter, which is not the subject of the Question. As to the subject matter of this Question, the problem is that these costs are incurred in pursuit of justice, the rule of law and the integrity of our commercial institutions. It is against that background that their value has to be judged and taken into account. In my view, when that kind of standard is applied it is clear that while the costs are high, they are just a reflection of the complexity of the issues with which the trial was concerned.
Lord Elton: My Lords, as we are in the realm of comparison, does it not reflect interestingly on the comparative efficiency of our legal and our legislative procedures that these legal costs amounted to half the cost of running your Lordships' House for one year?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I would be the first to accept that the taxpayer in this country gets extremely good value for money from your Lordships' House. However, it is really impossible to draw a comparison between the taxpayers' interest and enthusiasm in maintaining your Lordships' House and the cost of a trial of this kind, which is a very different subject indeed.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, can the noble and learned Lord tell us whether he thinks that in trials of this complexity—he has already stressed that—the course of justice is best served by a jury trial?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, that matter has been considered from time to time. It was considered by my noble and learned friend Lord Roskill and his committee. Important considerations have to be taken into account in this connection. As I said earlier, the Government are keeping such matters under review in the light of developments and of the developing complexities of such issues. In this country the right to jury trial is a very well established and important right and can therefore be innovated upon only after careful consideration and only, I think, for very good reason.

Chechnya
2.50 p.m.
Lord Belhaven and Stenton Lord Belhaven and Stenton asked Her Majesty's Government:
Following the accession of Russia to the Council of Europe, whether they will urge the Russian Government to withdraw their forces from Chechnya so that a properly supervised referendum on independence for that country can be held.
Lord Chesham: My Lords, we shall continue to take every opportunity to urge the Russian Government to maintain the search for an early and negotiated settlement which all sides accept.
Lord Belhaven and Stenton: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer as far as it goes. However, is my noble friend aware that the wanton destruction of towns and villages by the Russian military in Chechnya has resulted in two-thirds of the population being refugees? Does he think that if we had reacted similarly in Ulster we would still be members of the Council of Europe? Finally, should not Her Majesty's Government call Russia's attention to the fact that Britain has granted independence or self-determination to all her former colonies and territories, and should we not encourage the Russians to do the same?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, the conflict is a tragedy which has claimed thousands of civilian lives and displaced very many people. However, the UK also condemns those who use hostage-taking to advance their cause. We understand the very real difficulties for the Russian and other governments in dealing with this situation, and we have made clear to the Russian Government our concerns about the level of force being used. The OSCE principle is that frontiers are inviolable but can be changed peacefully and by agreement. The right to self-determination does not equate automatically with a right to secession. Chechnya is internationally recognised as part of the Russian Federation. A negotiated settlement needs to find an effective way to enable the Chechen people to express their identity within the framework of the constitution of the Russian Federation.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, the noble Lord mentioned the OSCE. Can he tell the House what action has been taken by the chairman-in-office and the central council of that organisation since the matter was last debated in this Parliament?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, yes, I can. To the best of our belief, I understand that the chairman is in Moscow this very day.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, in view of the fact that the Russian Foreign Office said at the end of January that the mandate of the OSCE did not allow it to mediate in Chechnya, despite the fact that it has been present there since 1995, does the noble Lord hold out very much hope that the OSCE will in fact do anything?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, we certainly hope that the OSCE will do something. We are also very aware that President Yeltsin plans to put forward proposals in
972
the very near future. We welcome any initiatives which pave the way for a long-term settlement which enjoys the support of all sides.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, whatever the merits of the subject, is there not a growing danger of intervening in an issue in the Russian presidential elections, following the precedent set by the noble Lord's party of intervening in the American presidential elections against Mr. Clinton?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, I do not think that putting our concerns to the Russian Government could be in any way interpreted as intervening in the Russian elections.
Lord Rea: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that as an amendment to the resolution of the Assembly of the Council of Europe which admitted Russia, a monitoring group on the conflict in Chechnya is to be set up? Can the noble Lord say whether that monitoring group has actually been set up? Who are its members? What is their remit? How often will they report, and to whom? What will be the relationship of that monitoring group to the OSCE? If by any chance the Minister does not have all those details at his fingertips, perhaps he can write to me.
Lord Chesham: My Lords, I should certainly like to write to the noble Lord on those matters.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, following on from my noble friend's question, given that the Council of Europe's own report to its Parliamentary Assembly admitted that Russia does not meet the membership criteria of the Council because of its failure with respect to human rights both in Chechnya and elsewhere, would the Government be willing to support some increase in Council of Europe resources for human rights monitoring, and would they be prepared to make a small additional contribution?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, as a member of the Council of Europe, Russia will be required to comply with the full range of Council of Europe principles. Those include early signature of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am sorry to have to intervene again. I do not think that the noble Lord answered my question. I wanted to know whether we would support additional resources for human rights monitoring and whether the UK would make a small additional contribution.
Lord Chesham: My Lords, I feel that that is slightly outside the Question. Our resources at the moment are fully occupied in Bosnia and the countries of the former Yugoslavia.
Lord Finsberg: My Lords, as regards Russian accession to the Council of Europe, which will in fact take place next week, it is not just the Parliamentary Assembly which is monitoring some 25 proposals which have been accepted by Mr. Zuganov and the Russian delegation, but also the Ministers' Deputies. May we

973
have an assurance that there will be as much co-operation from the Deputies' side as there will be from the Parliamentary Assembly side?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, I believe that I can give my noble friend every assurance on that.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that I am intrigued, as perhaps are other noble Lords, by what he said about the difference between self-determination and secession? Why did not the British Government take the same view in relation to the Yugoslavian federation where Croatia and Bosnia wished to secede but were granted recognition in spite of that? What is the difference between Yugoslavia in that respect and Chechnya?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, it is a somewhat different situation. We recognise independent states.
Lord Belhaven and Stenton: My Lords, following that question, if the Chechen people should use their right to self-determination to ask for secession, what would be the view of Her Majesty's Government?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, I go back to the main Answer. The principle is that frontiers are inviolable but can be changed peacefully and by agreement. Chechnya is internationally recognised as part of the Russian Federation. That is therefore the way we must view it.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, has it been made plain and clear to Mr. Yeltsin and the Russian Government that whereas this country was delighted at the collapse of the Soviet Union we think that the attitude of the Russian Government in Chechnya has been deplorable?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, I have already said that we have put as much pressure as we can on the Russians. Her Majesty's ambassador in Moscow discussed Chechnya with Mr. Mikhailov, the Nationalities Minister, and with Mr. Primakov at the beginning of February and urged the Russians to continue the search for a negotiated peace.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, are there not many ways of exercising self-determination which fall short of seceding?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, yes, I agree.

Access to Work Scheme
3 p.m.
Lord Ashley of Stoke Lord Ashley of Stoke asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they intend to make any changes in the access to work scheme for disabled people.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Lord Henley): My Lords, when access to work was first launched the Government
974
undertook to review it after one year's operation. Discussions are currently being held with a number of organisations. An announcement will be made before the end of the financial year.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, does the Minister recall that he played a prominent part in the setting up of the scheme which has been successful and cost-effective, helping many thousands of disabled people to retain their jobs and thousands more to obtain jobs? If the Government go ahead with proposed cuts from £19 million to £12.9 million the jobs of many disabled people and their lives will be seriously affected. A realistic budget has been placed at £23 million. That money should be paid to keep the scheme.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I remember, as does the noble Lord, the launch of access to work. I agree with him that it has been successful. I reject his allegations that we are cutting the budget. We launched access to work with a budget, first, of some £14 million, and for subsequent years, as the noble Lord will remember—this was made clear—of some £12.9 million. The nature of the scheme caused it to grow beyond that figure and we were able to borrow money from other parts of the department. That cannot continue in the longer term. We are restricting it to its budget of £12.9 million. That is why we had to impose certain limitations on the scheme in December last year. As the noble Lord knows, we are committed to keeping the scheme. That is why we are reviewing it and ensuring that it is properly targeted upon those whom it can benefit most. I believe that the noble Lord will remember some figures that I quoted to him previously. Currently, about 80 per cent. of those being assisted by access to work were already in work. The aim of the scheme, as my right honourable friend Mr. Hunt made clear when we launched it, was to try to give priority to those out of work and to help them into work.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, does the Minister accept that the Royal British Legion naturally has an interest in the Question? Will he, as Ministers have done hitherto, keep us closely informed of any developments whereby former servicemen and women who were wounded and are now crippled can be helped by this House and by all those who have sympathy and understanding for British men and women disabled in wars?
Lord Henley: My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, I have the greatest respect for the Royal British Legion. I believe that the whole House has respect for the work done by the noble Lord in the Royal British Legion. As I believe I made clear, we will have discussions with all appropriate organisations as we consider the appropriate changes to access to work. If the Royal British Legion wishes to make any comments to me or to my ministerial colleagues, I shall be more than happy to listen to them. As it is, I do not believe that it has asked for a meeting, but again, should it wish to have such a meeting, I shall be more than happy to consider it.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the changes introduced since

975
December 1985 have had the effect of disadvantaging some people who want to change their jobs? Is he aware, for example, that the RNIB has a list of people who have been disadvantaged as a result of the changes? Is he prepared to look at those cases?
Lord Henley: My Lords, what I am aware of is the rather scurrilous press release from the party opposite which claims that 7,500 people will lose their jobs as a result of the changes. There is no truth in that whatever. Obviously, we had to make changes because the budget was growing out of control. The programme was never supposed to be demand led. It was launched with a specific budget. We want to keep the programme within that budget.
Lord Addington: My Lords, as the programme has shown itself to be of benefit to the Treasury because it has resulted in getting into work people who now pay taxes, is it not illogical, even from the Treasury's point of view, that it should be restricted or cut back?
Lord Henley: My Lords, I suspect that the noble Lord did not listen to the figures I quoted earlier. I made clear that some 80 per cent. of those whom the programme helped were already in work and only 20 per cent. were out of work. We see it as more important to help people into work, and that is why we should like to target it in that respect. Whether the noble Lord can prove there were benefits to the Treasury as a result is another matter. It is arguable that many of those being helped were in work and would have retained their jobs whatever happened.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, does not the Secretary of State's recent announcement that government funding for the access to work scheme is to be given to the unemployed, as he said, mean that disabled people will inevitably suffer?
Lord Henley: My Lords, that is not what we said. We said that in the first year or so of the scheme's operation there was a bias in favour of the employed. The original intention was that there should be a bias, although not a total bias, in favour of the unemployed. We want to ensure that the scheme is focused properly on the unemployed. We want access to work together with the many other schemes we have to help disabled people into work—I must stress that access to work is only one of many and only one part of our expenditure in this field—to assist people into work.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the reason for the overspend is that the original financial allocation was inadequate? In terms of pure public relations the Government should be careful because the volume of protests from disabled people and their organisations, if the cuts are made, will he so great that they will obscure the fine work the scheme has done. In pure public relations terms the Government should give the scheme more money.
Lord Henley: My Lords, the budget for access to work as launched was greater than that of the four schemes which make up access to work. So I believe
976
it was fair to think that access to work would be budgeted appropriately and that there would be sufficient money. I should make clear in terms of public relations, of which the noble Lord speaks, that, as I said earlier, this is just one of many schemes. On the employment side alone my department is spending jolly nearly £180 million on schemes designed to help disabled people in employment. There is further help from my department on the education side. Overall expenditure by the DSS for the long-term sick and disabled amounts to something of the order of £20 billion. A further £6.5 billion is spent on personal social services to help disabled people. Our commitment is pretty real.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, is the Minister prepared to look at the cases which the RNIB has advanced concerning people who have difficulties caused by their wish to change jobs as a result of the changes introduced in December 1995? I understand from the institute that there are a number of cases of people wanting to change jobs who are disadvantaged as a result of the changes.
Lord Henley: My Lords, obviously I shall look at any cases the RNIB brings before me. I can give the noble Baroness the assurance that I and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State will be seeing the RNIB very soon.

Business
3.7 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m., my noble friend Lady Cumberlege will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement on mental health services that is to be made in another place.

Wild Mammals (Protection) Bill
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of commitment be discharged.—(Baroness Nicol.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Bill [H.L.]
3.8 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.

977
The Bill will assist the construction industry by speeding up the resolution of contract disputes and improving payment procedures; it will reform the arrangements for registering architects; it will give local authorities the freedom to decide their own priorities for tackling "unfitness" and disrepair in private housing; and it will extend powers to give financial assistance for the regeneration and development of derelict and rundown areas.
This is a fairly large Bill of 145 clauses and three schedules. It is long not only because it makes important changes to legislation but because it has been drafted largely to include and to restate previous legislation rather than simply to amend it. It therefore avoids the maddening consequence of having to read the Bill and having constantly to refer in cross-reference to existing statutes. I hope that your Lordships will find that at least to be of convenience.
When one introduces a Bill one normally starts at the beginning of it and progresses through to the end. However, I thought that on this occasion I would take a different course, if I may, not merely in order to muddle the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, if he is so muddled, but because I prefer to describe first the proposals in the Bill which I know will be of particular interest to a number of your Lordships. They are the proposals relating to construction contracts and they are contained in Part II.
The construction industry is one of the biggest industries in the country. Last year new construction orders were worth £50,000 million. The industry employs some 1.5 million people. Around three-quarters of them are self-employed or are employed in small firms which provide specialist services on construction sites; for example, electricians, plasterers, carpenters and steel erectors. These small companies are sub-contractors to larger contractors who, in turn, are under contract to the main contractor who in his turn is under contract to the client. In addition, the clients and the large contractor may also retain professional advisers—for instance, architects and surveyors—to help them design and manage the construction project.
The picture is one of a complex hierarchy of different contractors. Given the complexity of a large building site where things need to be done in the right order, and given the number of contracts involved, it is not surprising that the industry has a record of contractual disputes; and then, of course, people do not get paid. In every industry cash flow is important but it is particularly important in the building industry.
The payments are made by the client to the main contractor. The main contractor then passes a share to the sub-contractors, who are responsible for the heating, lighting, water services and so forth. They then pass a share on to their sub-contractors, and so it goes on. If a payment is held up, particularly if it is at the top of the chain, like a goods train shunting it knocks everyone down the line in turn. They all become affected by the lack of payment whether, as it were, it was their fault or not. For the large contractor this could mean serious inconvenience but for the small sub-contractor it could mean insolvency.
978
It is against that background that we have proposed legislation with two purposes. The first is to speed up the flow of payments and information about payments on construction contracts. The second is to provide a reliable means of resolving disputes quickly. This is not the Government trying to boss the industry about. That is not what this Government do or would seek to do in any event. Therefore, if the noble Lord, Lord Williams, wished to say anything nasty along those lines he might care now to rewrite his speech. We were asked by the industry to introduce this legislation and, being accommodating, we have done so.
The Bill arises originally from a report which was commissioned jointly by the Government and the construction industry and which was prepared under the chairmanship of Sir Michael Latham. As the industry is so large and so diverse, there are bound to be differences of emphasis in the way in which the Bill is perceived. There are those who will say that we have gone too far and there will be others who will say that we have not gone far enough.
We have tried to strike a balance and I believe that we have established a consensus in the industry in favour of the proposals. However, we are not proposing the legislation just because the industry has asked us to do so. We are proposing changes to construction contracts because the present arrangements are putting up our industry's costs and damaging its competitiveness. The Latham Report concluded that the costs of the construction process in this country were 30 per cent. higher than they need be. That is a large sum.
A great deal of British industry has learnt the need to be outward looking; to work in co-operation with both its customers and its suppliers in order to try to improve the quality and the presentation of its product; and to hold down costs. But the construction industry is only just embarking on that process. It is still at the bottom of the learning curve. It is our judgment that it will not advance further up the curve unless it becomes less adversarial and confrontational. It has to learn the simple lesson that delaying payment without good reason is not part of the ethos of "working together".
What the Bill does in Clause 107, therefore, is to provide that there should be an adequate mechanism for determining what payments become due under the contract and when. We want it to be perfectly clear to both the payer and the recipient what payment can be expected and when.
We are also providing a right as regards contracts which are of longer duration—60 days or more—for payments to be made in instalments. The purpose of this is to ensure that in so far as is possible there is some regularity in the flow of payments and that people can expect interim payments and do not have to wait until the end of the contract period before being paid.
We are also providing a right to information about individual payments. That is most important. It is quite possible that there could be legitimate reasons why payment should be withheld. No one wants defective workmanship but, if that were the case, it would be reasonable for someone to delay payment. There is

979
nothing in the legislation which requires anyone to pay for shoddy work. There is, however, a requirement to provide information and to warn the contractor if payment which he is expecting is to be withheld. The contractor who is expecting the payment must therefore be notified in advance that he will not be paid and he must be told the reasons why he is not to be paid. If the reasons are not valid, the two parties can resort to the new dispute procedures contained in the Bill.
We are also proposing to restrict the notorious practice of using pay-when-paid and pay-if-paid clauses in construction contracts. It does not take a Mensa-type brain to realise that there is considerable financial advantage in not paying the contractor below you until you yourself have been paid. That is a pretty common practice within the construction industry but it is a much despised one since the smallest contractors may have to wait months for their money—
Lord Graham of Edmonton: That is right.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am glad that the noble Lord the Opposition Chief Whip agrees that that is right. I hope that he agrees with everything I say; but in this respect he is right and I am delighted that we are in accord.
We are proposing to make the pay-when-paid clauses in contracts unenforceable in all but the most exceptional circumstances so that everyone may be paid promptly for the work which they have done. I hope to carry the noble Lord the Opposition Chief Whip with me on that too—
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I am listening.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I hope that I am carrying him with me too, which is not quite the same thing.
We are also proposing arrangements to deal with construction disputes. That appears in Clause 105. The concept is straightforward. We are giving all contractual parties the right to use the alternative dispute resolution procedure which is known as "adjudication". The procedure is familiar to the construction industry, although it is relatively new and at present not widely used. Essentially, it involves taking a dispute to an impartial third party who will generally use informal procedures to try to sort out the rights and wrongs of the issue and who will make a decision which will enable work on the contract to continue. Our intention is to see contract disputes resolved, wherever possible, within a period of 28 days. Of course, many serious disputes will not be capable of resolution within that timescale and those will have to be resolved by other means, normally by arbitration or through the courts.
The industry's advice to us is that prompt and informal action at the time when a dispute first arises will help to nip the problems in the bud and to save a great number of disputes finding their way into the courts.
The Bill also proposes arrangements which will provide a sanction if the payment proposals are not respected, and it proposes fall-back arrangements if, despite the measures which we are introducing,
980
construction contracts still fail to include payment and dispute resolution procedures. So much for that part of the Bill.
Part III of the Bill reforms the Architects Registration Council of the United Kingdom. The position at present is that one cannot practise as an architect, and one cannot call oneself an architect, without having been first entered upon a statutory register.
That register is not, as many of your Lordships might think, maintained by the Royal Institute of British Architects. The Royal Institute of British Architects is a distinguished body but its duty is to represent the professional interests of architects. The Register of Architects is maintained by an independent Architects Registration Council which was set up by statute in 1931.
The Government initially took the view, following a report which was prepared by Mr. John Warne in 1993, that the registration council should be abolished and that other arrangements should be made to secure the continued integrity of the architectural profession. That in the eyes of the architects was a wholly disagreeable prospect. There was also some disquiet among members of the public and Members of Parliament. So we agreed that the council should be retained, but that it should be reformed.
The proposals in the Bill, therefore, include a reduction in the members of the body from 73 members to 15 members and the streamlining of its organisation. I think that your Lordships might agree that a council with 73 members tends to be a fairly unwieldy body. The proposals also change the balance of membership. At the moment the council is overwhelmingly dominated by architects. The Bill would change that and would provide a small majority of eight to seven in favour of non-architects. Those include the profession's customers whose confidence in the architectural profession is essential to its well-being.
The lay majority on the reformed council was specifically agreed with the Royal Institute of British Architects, who were advised by none other than the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank. I am glad to see the noble Lord in his place and I am glad to say also that the Royal Institute of British Architects approves of our proposals. Our intention is that these changes should make the registration council a more representative and, dare I say it, a more efficient body which will work better for the benefit of both architects and their clients.
Part I of the Bill deals with the provisions for supporting the renewal of private sector housing. It is a fundamental principle that homeowners must be primarily responsible for the repair and the maintenance of their own properties. But there is a long-standing tradition of government assistance for owners who cannot afford to deal with their unfit houses.
When my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment published the housing White Paper last summer, he made it clear that we remained committed to the principle of a decent home for every family. Renovation grants help to achieve this. The present system was introduced in 1989, and it was intended to encourage local authorities to develop their

981
own strategies for private sector renewal, declaring renewal areas where appropriate. It also directed the available help more towards poor condition housing and poorer people. It gave a right to mandatory grants for people on low incomes and in poor housing. It also introduced a grant to give help to disabled people to enable them to adapt their homes to their disability.
Local authorities now have wide powers, but experience has shown that the pressure for grant assistance has resulted in mandatory grants taking the lion's share of resources. This has often distorted what many local authorities might wish to do because so much of their funds have had to go towards what they had to do that there was little left for them to do what they would like to do and which, in their view, was a suitable and needy expenditure in their locality.
The Government are committed to improving the condition of the housing stock and to providing resources to help those who are most in need. But any regime which we have has to be able to operate within a finite level of resources. There will never by sufficient resources to do everything which we might ideally wish to do. They will always be constrained.
The main change which we are proposing, compared with that which happens now, is that, with the exception of the disabled facilities grant, the mandatory grants will be made discretionary. This will give local authorities the ability to manage their resources so that they can provide help to those who are most in need and so that they can secure long-term improvement of the worst of the private housing stock.
Means testing of grants to owner-occupiers will be retained. The Bill will also prevent abuse by introducing a "prior qualifying period" and it will strengthen the conditions attached to the grant. Mandatory and discretionary disabled facilities grants, which are provided to help disabled people to remain in their own homes, will still continue, with some improvements, including a more relaxed approach to means testing.
The Bill will now make grant assistance to landlords of rented property discretionary. This is a change from the White Paper proposals which proposed more restriction on grants to landlords, and it will, I think, be widely welcomed.
The existing minor works assistance scheme will be replaced by a simpler and wider home repair assistance scheme. Under this, local authorities will be able to give help for minor repairs, improvements and adaptations for elderly people, for those who are infirm and for those who are on means-tested benefits. People who live in mobile homes and houseboats will, also for the first time, be eligible for help.
Local authorities will have increased flexibility when taking enforcement action on unfit property requiring repair. They will be able to defer this action for up to 12 months, at which time they will have to review the position and decide what is the best course of action to take.
There are cases where immediate and full repair will not always be the best solution; and, where grant assistance is needed, local authorities will have some
982
discretion in the way in which they manage their budgets. Part IV of the Bill introduces a new discretionary relocation grant. This will help people whose homes are in clearance areas and who wish to acquire a replacement home in the same local area. Wholesale clearance may sometimes be the only realistic option for dealing with the worst housing conditions, especially where space is at a premium. But it should never be undertaken lightly because it is only too easy to destroy close-knit local communities.
This grant will help to keep local communities together by assisting people. It will help to bridge the gap between the cost of a replacement home in the locality and the amount of money which the applicant can reasonably afford, taking into account any compensation which he may receive for the loss of his old home.
Put simply, this is a Bill which aims to help the construction industry and the local authorities to achieve more in the work which they do. It will benefit both the construction industry and the house owners, and I commend it to your Lordships.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Earl Ferrers.)
3.27 p.m.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Earl for explaining with his usual clarity and good humour what is, as your Lordships will understand, a long and rather complicated Bill. I thought that the noble Earl was perhaps rather worried about what I might be about to say from this Dispatch Box and was trying to get his retaliation in first, as we say in football terms. He may be rather more worried by the time I finish.
As I understand it, this is the first of two or perhaps even three offerings from the Government which started off, according to the gracious Speech, as a Housing Bill. That Bill in draft achieved no fewer than 380 clauses and would have been one of the largest Bills ever put before Parliament. In that event, the Government, in my view quite wisely, decided to split it and present two Bills—one for consideration by your Lordships and another for concurrent consideration in another place. So far so good.
But there is an oddity. The oddity is that the original Housing Bill contained 380 clauses. The Housing Bill introduced in another place contained 180 clauses, of which I understand 11 have now been withdrawn, and this Bill has 145 clauses. My arithmetic is not of the strongest, but to me this means that the two Bills together when reduced contain 326 clauses. So, 54 clauses are therefore missing. What is to happen to those 54 clauses? We do not know. But I hope—and I say this most seriously to the noble Earl—that they are not waiting in some sort of legislative siding, waiting to be shunted into the Bill as it travels along the parliamentary railway. I say that because with other Bills we have had occasion to recommit clauses introduced by the Government. I trust that we will not be going down that track as regards this Bill.

983
The Bill before your Lordships today is, to be honest, something of a mishmash. It ranges from home renovation grants to disposal of the assets of new towns, by way of the construction industry, architects and the single regeneration budget. As such, as your Lordships might expect, there are matters with which we agree and matters on which we disagree. In our view, therefore, the Bill has a strange resemblance to a curate's egg. If your Lordships will allow me, I propose, without muddling the Minister in any way, to take each bit of the egg in its turn.
The first bit of the egg that we come to would, I am afraid, turn off any reasonable curate. It is, of course, Part I, which deals with home renovation grants. Perhaps I may give your Lordships some of the background. Private housing in Britain is in a state of major disrepair in many places. Indeed, 1.5 million homes in England alone—that is one in 12 of the total—are officially unfit for human habitation, failing the basic legal standards covering structural stability, sanitation, dampness, water supply and heating. Nor is there any reason to believe that the situation is any better in Scotland or in Wales.
Further, and contrary to popular opinion, the majority of those homes are not owned by absentee private landlords but by owner occupiers, many of them older people, or unemployed or from ethnic minorities (some, indeed, by people who fall into all three categories at the same time). One-half of outright owners—that is, those without mortgages—live on incomes of less than £150 per week; in other words, people who simply cannot afford to bring their homes up to the minimum legal standard. There are consequential dangers to health which, quite apart from the suffering of those involved, impose greater strains on the NHS. That is the background.
To be fair—and I always try to be fair to the noble Earl—the Government recognised the problem in the 1980s and tried to do something about it by introducing the Local Government and Housing Act 1989. That Act recognised a government responsibility to ensure minimum standards in the nation's housing stock—in our view, quite rightly. The Act set out a grant system under which a statutory grant of up to £20,000 is given provided a property fails the legal minimum standard of fitness and the owner passes a means test, a test which may also set the level of contribution from the owner, him or herself.
That scheme is now to be dismantled, against, as it happens, the advice of most of those who were consulted. After only five years' experience of the scheme, the Government have decided that enough is enough. In its stead we are now to have a new scheme, which is not to be available to everyone as of right, but which is to be at the discretion of local authorities.
Let me be quite clear what that means. It means that the Government have abandoned their previously acknowledged responsibility to ensure the maintenance of minimum standards in the nation's private homes. In future, there will be no clear, national framework either to address the current disrepair in private housing which, after all, provides eight out of 10 of all homes; it follows
984
directly that there will be no government commitment to alleviate the health problems which are clearly linked—very precisely—to that disrepair.
It is no good the Government pretending that what is proposed will reduce the present long queues for renovation grants. The queues will still be there, because the requirement will still be there. It is no good either to pretend that abuses—and there have been abuses—will magically cease; if anything, abuses will increase as those with the greatest influence try to jump the queue. We all know how these things work, even in the best of systems.
Worse still, practice on how to apply the discretionary system will vary from local authority to local authority. The effect of that will be most marked, I believe, in urban areas where local authority boundaries run along streets rather than fields. I have no doubt at all, if precedent is anything to go by, that Wandsworth and Westminster—to name only two councils—will operate the new discretion in quite a different manner from Southwark and Kensington and Chelsea. Not only that, but by introducing a three year qualifying period before entitlement to grant and the ability of local authorities to defer action, the Government have deliberately introduced a place, under statute, for unfit housing to be a permanent feature of our urban landscape. Unfitness is now to be institutionalised. I can only say that, in our view, this part of the Bill will do nothing to help our housing problem and in all probability will make things worse.
The next bit of the egg has a somewhat better flavour. Indeed, in Part II of the Bill, dealing with construction contracts—which is what the noble Earl started with—we are on less controversial ground, although there are still difficulties. We welcome the general intentions of this part as we welcomed the Latham Report when it appeared. As the noble Earl pointed out, we have to recognise that the construction industry is a major contributor to our gross domestic product—8 per cent., we are told. However, by general admission, it is also extremely inefficient. Those inefficiencies are caused by bad contractual and operating practices. If that were not so—and I agree with the noble Earl that it is—I am bound to say that I would have some sympathy with the view taken by the Scottish Law Commission and the Scottish Law Society both of which argue that the construction industry is not so different from other activities in the economy that it requires specific legislation on its own. But the industry is so important and the inefficiencies so great that we agree with the Government's view that legislation should be introduced, and we must reject the view of the Scottish Law Commission and the Scottish Law Society.
The difficulty, of course, lies in deciding what constitutes "construction operations"—to use the words of the Bill. In fact, I am advised that the activities specified in Clause 102 of the Bill only cover about 50 per cent. of what could properly be called construction activity. So here is the first problem. It does seem rather odd, to say the least, to legislate for 50 per cent. of an industry's activity and leave the rest to fortune. The split, if that is what it is, makes curious reading in itself. For instance, we

985
learn that the expression "construction operations" excludes the construction of process plant, which by any standards is or includes a great deal of what would normally be called construction activity; it also excludes construction of steelwork on a site where the primary activity is the storage of pharmaceuticals or food and drink—in other words, warehouses. I confess that I cannot for the life of me see the difference between those activities that I have just mentioned and the installation in any building—including, of course, processing plant or warehouses—of systems of heating, lighting and so on which are included in the provisions of the Bill. I am no construction engineer, but this seems to me to be an argument not even about the number of angels that can stand on the top of a pin, but rather about what kind or degree or character of angels should properly split that place between them.
I have no doubt that the Government will reply that they have a let-out in allowing themselves to change the definitions in Clause 102 by simple order. We shall, of course, see what the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee has to say about that. But it does seem to me odd, and some might say offensive, that the Government present us with legislation for half an industry, and then say in effect, "Do not worry; pass the legislation and we will make up the rest of it as we go along".
The same kind of fuzziness appears in other clauses in this part. The process of adjudication is far from clear; there will presumably be a requirement for the parties to act on an adjudicator's decision pending any appeal to an arbitrator or to the courts, but this sits uneasily with the suggested "fall-back" position of "fast-track" arbitration. Nor is there to be any provision for trust funds as recommended by Latham, on the grounds, apparently, that nobody could agree on how such a system might operate; the Government seem to be standing on the sidelines. The whole matter of latent defects liability has been not just kicked into touch but, given the normal timetable for the implementation of Law Commission reports which the Government are suggesting, kicked into touch, over the grandstand and into the car park.
On the question of "pay when paid", we welcome the new Government proposals, while noting that if they had been in force at the time that Mr. Heseltine was running a business we might have been deprived of the glorious presence of a deputy Prime Minister because that is the way Mr. Heseltine, according to his own account—I say that, of course, without any duplicitous intent, to use the modern phrase—made his fortune. But there is a residual concern that the insolvency exemption allows loopholes which will be to the detriment of precisely the smaller contractors whom the noble Earl was so anxious to help. We shall have to look at that carefully.
It is difficult to be enthusiastic either way about the third bit of the egg, and I imagine most curates would munch their way through this part without departing from respectful silence. I refer to the passage on architects. This has, we are told, the strong support of the Royal Institute of British Architects and, given that
986
benediction, it might be assumed that we would all welcome it with our collective hats thrown—metaphorically, of course, given our Standing Orders—high into the air.
But even here there are some oddities. Not very long ago, in February 1992 to be exact, as the noble Earl pointed out, the Government set up a review of the Architects Registration Acts from 1931 to 1969. The review was conducted by an assessor for the Department of the Environment, Mr. John Warne. The review's conclusions were decisive, and warmly welcomed by the Government. The conclusions, I have to tell your Lordships, were that the protection of the title "architect" should be abolished and that the Architects Registration Council of the United Kingdom should be disbanded, its functions to be taken over on a self-regulatory basis by RIBA. So enthusiastic were the Government about these conclusions that they embraced them with the greatest alacrity, and continued to do so until their change of mind. Indeed so sudden was that change of mind that one unfortunate DoE Minister found himself making a passionate speech pledging the Government to implement the Warne conclusions only the day before one of his ministerial colleagues rose to his feet in another place to announce the opposite.
Now, of course, the Government are no stranger to that sort of event, and we have all learnt to take it in our stride. No doubt we will be offered some explanation for this sudden change of heart or, perhaps more likely, an assertion that Ministers were blameless and that it was all the fault of the officials in the first place. But the real question which has to be answered is this: why is it that in almost all other professions, lawyers, accountants, stockbrokers and so on, the Government favour self-regulation, but in this particular case, when there is a competent and distinguished body able to take on the job, they go for statutory control? It seems so out of keeping with their usual approach. As it happens, it is also out of keeping with the Latham approach of Constructing the Team which is the title of the Latham Report. You cannot construct a team when one of its members is given a privileged legal status and is subject to a separate discipline.
Part IV of the Bill deals with relocation grants and is very welcome. Indeed, it is the only bit of the egg that the curate may eat more or less without reservation. Whatever we think about the single regeneration budget—and it is by no means a perfect arrangement—it is certainly better than the previous system of regeneration grants. I confess I find it a bit odd that only now is the SRB to be given, in the words of the explanatory memorandum to the Bill, "a legislative basis". Does this mean that the awards that have taken place already were illegal? What is the answer to that question? Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, will explain that when he comes to wind up. As for relocation grants in clearance areas, We welcome these. They are based on good practice developed by Birmingham City Council—I pay tribute to my noble friend Lady Fisher of Rednal in this—which the DoE study showed to have beneficial results, and Birmingham should be congratulated. The only point I would make is that the scheme will only work properly

987
if sufficient resources are available. At present the rate of clearance of obsolete properties is now so low that properties built today, according to a National Housing Forum report, will have to last more than 4,000 years before they are replaced.
I come at last to Part V of the Bill. Our curate has now got down to the shell at the bottom of the egg. This part is entitled "Miscellaneous and General Provisions ". This seems to occur in many Bills nowadays, and serves as a general repository for things which will not fit elsewhere or which the department would like to get in while they have a legislative slot. Thus we have residuary bodies, about which my noble friend Lord Dubs will say more later. I will confine myself to one comment. In the case of urban development corporations we have been assured time after time that once the period for a particular UDC was terminated the properties would revert to local authorities. Are those assurances now to be considered worthless? Are all the assets of the UDCs going to be transferred to unelected residuary bodies? Indeed, are all the assets of new towns to be flogged off by a new quango? It really cannot make much sense.
As your Lordships will by now have gathered, this is a long, complicated and difficult Bill. I am afraid that the Committee stage will be similarly long and difficult. It might have been easier had we been persuaded by the Government that the intentions behind the Bill, and its likely effect if passed into law, would be on balance beneficial. We are, I am afraid, unable to take that view, and we will in Committee hope to expose its inadequacy and attempt to improve it. We will be doing the same when its Siamese twin, the Housing Bill, comes before your Lordships' House, as neither of them taken in the round provide an effective response to the country's many pressing housing, construction and regeneration needs. This should have been the moment for the Government to produce something positive and convincing. They have not done so. When the time comes, we will.
3.50 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, the title of the Bill suggests an ambitious programme. Housing grants, construction and regeneration are ringing terms. However, leaving aside Parts II and III, which I concede are important, it is a Bill concerned with detail. It is important detail, but nevertheless detail. I see it not as a strategic Bill, more micro than macro.
With boring conservatism, I shall start at the beginning, although I am not sure where the beginning of a curate's egg is. That is not something which lends itself neatly to anything with parallel lines. I shall begin with Part I. I do not pretend that the issues are easy. The foreword to the housing White Paper referred to the balance between the role of the state in providing for necessities and the role of the individual in taking responsibility for his own needs. I do not agree with the Government's analysis that:
"Home ownership must remain at the heart of our policies"
988
Within the Government's own objectives, does the Bill meet the White Paper's themes of choice, opportunity and responsibility? I recognise that the Bill contains the offcuts and outtakes of the main Bill, subject perhaps to the lost 54 clauses, but I suspect that it does not.
The Bill might have been called the Housing Condition Bill because condition is the nearest to a common thread running through it. Housing condition matters greatly. Decent housing and good health are fundamental to personal wellbeing. If one has good quality housing one is more likely to have better health than if one is in bad housing. It is crucial to the individual and for society as a whole. It is not only a moral issue but a matter of good economics and of common sense. The noble Lord, Lord Williams, referred to the costs to society: healthcare, reduced productivity if one is in poor health, and the effect on children and on children's education. It has a place in effective community care and the local economy. Housing restoration is labour-intensive. It uses a high proportion of indigenous materials, and that amounts to jobs locally and nationally.
Housing is a national asset. Our housing stock is ageing. Approximately half of it is more than 50 years old. Within the private rented sector about three-quarters is more than 50 years old. Old housing is not necessarily bad. Indeed, it is often very good. However, it needs to be looked after. The noble Lord, Lord Williams, referred to the rate of replacement of obsolete properties, which is now so low that housing built today will have to last about 4,000 years. He did not say that that is probably as long as Stonehenge has lasted, but I suspect that he and I probably got that fact from the same source. Therefore, it is very important that investment in maintenance, repair and improvement is continued. One might say that tender loving care is needed.
The scale of the problem, as reported by the National Housing Forum in its paper Papering over the cracks, published about 18 months ago, is that there are 1.8 million homes unfit for human habitation, 3.9 million in need of substantial urgent repair and at least 300,000 houses shared by more than one household, most of which lack adequate means of escape from fire. People living in housing in poor condition are more likely to be on low incomes, unemployed, young single people, frail older people over 75, or members of minority ethnic groups.
Repairs are becoming very difficult for many households in poor quality housing. We know of the low level of income of many households. We know of the problems of negative equity. We need a strategy to help owners and private landlords—who are in an important position to provide a major source of housing—to afford the costs of property ownership. Housing is a national asset, and it must be good business practice to invest in, and maintain, that asset base.
However, in the same report the National Housing Forum refers to the Government's policies as showing an,
"absence of a broader, long term perspective. The government seems intent on squeezing renovation expenditure and reducing the scope and standard of grant-aided renovation step by step … housing decay is a continuous process. It is the government's responsibility to

989
develop measures which will promote and stimulate investment across the whole of the housing stock, to produce a sustainable renewal programme".
The Government have set their own target of houses that will be needed in the foreseeable future at 50 per cent. of new houses on brownfield or re-used sites. I wonder whether the Bill has a place in helping to meet that target.
What is the thrust of Part I of the Bill? It ends most mandatory grants, but it constrains discretion. As I read the Bill it seems to provide neither a national strategy nor real discretion locally. As the noble Lord, Lord Williams, said, what is local is at times difficult to determine. Boundaries in urban areas do indeed run along streets, although that between Westminster and Wandsworth is a rather wet street. However, if the noble Lord is suggesting that the Thames would be better used as a highway I agree with him. There is not true discretion. A local authority can grant aid if various criteria set by the Bill are met. Its discretion then relates to whether or not to provide the assistance.
The Bill ends the statutory means to tackle the problem. Discretionary grants are not a framework for a strategic approach, without which disrepair will continue. The current system is founded on an assumption that if property is unfit action will be taken to address the problem. That system is being dismantled.
The Bill does not address the funding difficulties. One did not realistically expect that it would. However, funding is a fundamental issue. I recognise that it is not the whole issue. However cash-happy one is, one must target, prioritise and identify best value for money. However, one cannot let this debate pass without commenting on the competing demands for local authority resources, which must affect the level of grant.
What are the Government doing to encourage other sources of funding and to raise awareness among owner occupiers of maintenance needs? Is it that, with repossessions running at 1,000 a week and a stagnant market and negative equity, they accept that there is rather less incentive to repair than there might have been?
The system does not have the values of a truly discretionary scheme. It does not enable local authorities to work up and implement their own plans. For instance, how will the residence qualification period of three years affect those starting on the home ownership ladder? Are not new owners, those coming into the market, the very people to be encouraged? The provision may vary between areas. The three-year period may be varied by the Secretary of State. I am not sure whether that applies for different areas.
What is the place of the deferred option or the do-nothing option in the national strategy? Does this set a specific place for unfit housing in the strategy? The Association of District Councils and the Association of Metropolitan Authorities—the very people one would think advocates of complete discretion for local government—say that,
"it institutionalises unfitness by sanctioning inaction where properties fail minimum standards".
990
What is the place of grants in the strategy for helping people to stay in their own homes? As regards discretionary grants; many of the potential applicants will be elderly. That must have implications for community care programmes.
I welcome the disabled facilities grant in principle. However, I am concerned about the delay of up to 12 months in payments of discretionary disabled facilities grants. That must lead to individual hardship. It must be costly in terms of the well-being of disabled people and their carers and involve costs to social services and the health service while the adaptations are awaited. Although it is a point for detailed amendment, the definition of a disabled person seems outdated. It reflects a definition of some generations ago. At the least it should be replaced by the definition of the Disability Discrimination Act so that, for instance, visually impaired people who are not registered blind will qualify.
I have stated that many of the people affected will be elderly, which must have implications for community care policies. In Committee we shall test the Government on the discretionary aspects of the scheme and the means testing.
My noble friend Lord Ezra will, I am sure, spend some time on the home energy efficiency provisions of the Bill. Knowing my noble friend, I am sure that he will cast light rather than heat on the subject. Those provisions are separated from the grants provisions by some 70 clauses. Is it appropriate to include provisions for grants for lights and domestic appliances in a home energy efficiency scheme which does not have the capacity to meet basic insulation and heating needs? The clause follows the part of the Bill which puts the single regeneration budget on a statutory basis. Like the noble Lord, Lord Williams, I rather blinked at the suggestion that the basis might not have been statutory and wondered what that meant.
When the single regeneration agency was formed, I expressed concern about yet another king-sized quango and asked whether it would harness talents which had not found their expression in the previous system. This was at a time when there was a damning report on the activities of the urban development corporations—I admit that I quote the press on this—which,
"had had a bad year. No council would have been let off as lightly by the hawk-eyed ministerial team".
I am not wholly convinced that matters are now perfect. Although I accept that the bidding process, the competition process, is developing, I remain anxious about the effort, time and cost that are put into unsuccessful competition—the defeated expectations.
I remain anxious about the over-emphasis on the leverage of the private sector. A year ago £1 of single regeneration budget funding was met by £4 of private and/or public sector money. That seems to give enormous scope for tweaking and distorting the target of that funding. I do not believe that competition is the right strategy to tackle deprivation.
I remain concerned about the lack of accountability. Any transparency comes after the event when one reads reports about how the funding has been spent. For

991
instance, how can one assess beforehand what is to go into physical regeneration as against training? It is not easy to see how local communities can influence that area of spending. At Committee stage we shall look for new duties to be attached to the new powers. Otherwise there will be no ability to analyse or debate the changes in the purposes to which the resources are being applied.
I look forward to detailed debate on the provisions on construction contracts. I find difficulty in accepting that an imposed disputes procedure should be separate from the courts. In a complex industry I accept that that may point to a failure of the courts, but it is an interesting and perhaps dangerous path to go down. The same applies to an imposed scheme for dealing with payments separate from that agreed by contract. At the same time I note that the Government are refusing to underwrite the industry's codes of practice by legislation. However, when such changes are heralded, so much is excluded—maintenance, process plant, off-site fabrication. Indeed, it appears to be a complete list of the privatised utilities. I look forward to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, on that aspect.
My noble friend Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank will refer to parts of the scheme which deal with the architects' profession. My personal view is that registration of the professions must provide for complaints and the need to address any compensation scheme. I speak as a solicitor whose trade association attempts also to be the organisation which responds to complaints from the public. I feel that that is not necessarily a happy mix. Having had to seek compensation from an accountant in my professional life, I discovered that that profession does not have a scheme. I look forward to the next stages of the Bill.
As regards Part I of the Bill, the chair of a district council housing committee wrote to me last week saying that government funding for housing could fall on the grounds, "If you don't have to do it, we don't have to fund it". I hope that we shall have undertakings and assurances today that the Bill is not a mechanism for reducing grant funding. I hope that we may also have assurances on the point made in the housing White Paper that local authorities will be encouraged to act as strategic enablers to make the best use of available housing and resources. I remain to be convinced by the Bill.

Mental Health Services
4.9 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cumberlege): My Lords, with permission I wish to repeat a Statement on mental health services.
"With permission, Madam Speaker, I wish to make a Statement about the future of mental health services.
"On 24th August last year, my honourable friend the Minister for Health wrote to health authority chairmen informing them that I had asked the regional directors of the NHS to review the progress being made in their regions, towards the delivery of modern
992
and effective mental health services. I am today publishing the conclusions of that process, and I am announcing the further steps which the Government intend to take to deliver their commitment to a comprehensive, high quality mental health service.
"The background to these developments is familiar to the House. Over the last 40 years, in this and every other developed country, health and social service authorities have been replacing asylum based care with a broad spectrum of facilities which are better able to meet the needs of the individual person suffering from a mental illness. At its best, a modern mental health service represents a dramatic improvement in the quality of care available to its patients.
"Too often however the reality has not matched up to the potential. That is why we decided last June to make the improvement of mental health services a key medium-term priority for the NHS and it is why I initiated the review process last August.
"Today's report of that review confirms that every health authority now has in place plans which commit it to deliver a comprehensive mental health service. Sixty-eight health authorities have demonstrated that this objective will be achieved during the next financial year; the remaining 33 authorities have plans to deliver a comprehensive service which will take longer to complete. The review shows that health authorities are planning to increase the resources committed to mental health services next year by £53 million. Regional directors will continue to monitor the delivery of these plans at local level.
"It is important to be clear about the objective. The phrase "care in the community" has too often been taken to mean the abandonment of residential care for mentally ill people. That is not, and never has been, our policy. That is why I am today publishing a document entitled The Spectrum of Care which sets out in clear language the range of services which constitute a modern mental health service.
"It restates our commitment to provide treatment at home for those patients for whom that is the right answer. For this group there needs to be a range of services provided by the NHS and local authority social services departments, very often in partnership with local authority housing departments.
"The document also sets out the range of other facilities that are needed to complete the required spectrum of care: day hospitals and day centres: to provide for those who need care during the day; access to out of hours specialist services and crisis accommodation: to meet short-term crisis need; acute hospital beds: to meet the needs of those with acute mental health problems; 24-hour nursed residential places: to meet the long-term residential needs of those with severe and enduring mental illness.
"All of these facilities are needed together with a range of secure units for those who need treatment in a secure environment. Today's document makes clear the Government's commitment to deliver not simply

993
care in the community, but the full spectrum of care required for a comprehensive modern mental health service.
"Along with this overview of the full spectrum of care, I am also publishing a report commissioned by my department on 24-hour nursed care. The report states that there is accumulating evidence of a need for residential nursing care, for a relatively small group of so-called new long-stay clients. The Government accept that facilities of this kind do have a valuable role to play in the spectrum of care, and it will look to health authorities to ensure that their plans for the future provide for this need to be met.
"Although it is understandable that much of the comment about the state of mental health services concentrates on the pattern of service provision, a crucial requirement is that there is effective collaboration between the wide range of agencies that contribute to an individual's care. That is why the Government are committed to the full implementation from 1st April of this year of the Care Programme Approach. This requires the preparation for each patient under the specialist services of a plan of care based on an assessment of their needs, which names a key worker to be responsible for ensuring that this care is delivered.
"The NHS is under an obligation from next year to audit the successful delivery of this approach. I am today publishing an audit pack designed to assist with this process. It has been developed by the NHS Executive with the Royal College of Psychiatrists and constitutes an important reinforcement of our commitment to quality in these services.
"A further reinforcement of quality is provided by the Government's decision to introduce a patient's charter on mental health. A charter does not, of course, by itself improve standards. It does, however, state clearly the standards which the individual patient can expect to receive from the statutory services, and it therefore constitutes a bench-mark by which the quality of the service can be judged.
"I am today publishing a draft charter and I am asking for comments by 26th April. The draft charter proposes standards for timely access to specialist services. It sets out the entitlement of a mentally ill person to have their illness explained; to have the effects of medication explained to them; and to be given information about advocacy and support groups, together with information about what to do in an emergency. It also establishes that a patient who needs continuing care outside hospital will not be discharged from hospital until appropriate arrangements, including a care programme, have been put in place.
"There has recently been disquiet about the arrangements which allow hospital managers to discharge patients from detention under the Mental Health Act, possibly against the advice of their responsible medical officer. It is clearly essential that a detained patient must have the right to have their case reviewed. The Mental Health Act provides for
994
mental health review tribunals for this purpose. The powers of the managers operate in parallel with those of tribunals, to allow more informal consideration of individual cases. The operation of this system is currently being considered by the Royal College of Psychiatrists and the National Association of Health Authorities and Trusts with the Mental Health Act Commission. We expect to receive their advice in the spring of this year and the Government will reach a conclusion on the basis of that advice.
"Finally, I come to the question of money. This Government are firmly wedded to the provision of sufficient resources to allow the continued improvement of our mental health services. In December I announced the creation of a Mental Health Challenge Fund within the NHS, and I am today publishing the detailed criteria for applications to this fund. The fund will deliver £20 million worth of improvements and development in addition to the £53 million of growth money which health authorities already intend to spend on mental health next year.
"In December I also announced an increase of £11 million in the mental illness specific grant for 1996–97, and a further £9 million for 1997–98 subject to parliamentary approval. Of this £20 million, £4.5 million will provide for a 10 per cent. increase in the existing specific grant programme; £2 million will virtually double the provision for the homeless mentally ill initiative; and the remaining £13.5 million will be committed to a target fund to assist those local authorities working in areas where the strains on the mental health services are greatest. I have written today to the local authority associations inviting them to join us in drawing up the detailed criteria for the schemes.
"The combination of an extra £20 million through the mental illness specific grant; and extra £20 million through the NHS Challenge Fund; £53 million from health authorities' own plans; and a contribution of at least £2 million from local authorities' own resources will bring the total of growth money for the mental health services under this programme to over £95 million. Our National Health Service has made great strides in improving mental healthcare. I pay tribute to all those working in health and social services who have achieved so much for mentally ill people. We are committed to supporting them, to securing the best standards for users and carers, and to providing a service of which the public can be proud. The measures I have announced today constitute a substantial contribution to the progress we need to make. I commend them to the House".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
4.18 p.m.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I thank the Minister warmly for repeating the Statement made in another place. It is an important Statement, not least because the Government are acknowledging that community care for the mentally ill is failing, as we on these Benches have been saying for some time. There

995
are growing numbers of mentally ill people in the country and their care is causing great anxiety to the professional and informal carers who try to look after them; anxiety to ordinary citizens who are disturbed and sometimes threatened by the presence of seriously ill people in their midst; and, above all, anxiety to the patients themselves, who often feel isolated and bereft of support and treatment.
Today it is sadly all too common to see mentally ill people apparently aimlessly wandering our streets. Their present plight arises from a failure to develop proper community care services to substitute for old-fashioned long-stay residential institutions. As the Statement rightly says, too often the reality has not matched up to the potential. Too many psychiatric beds in hospitals have been closed too quickly. Nearly half have been cut since 1980, and patients have been discharged to fend for themselves without adequate support. The modest package of proposals announced in the Statement does little to redress that central crisis—a crisis that has been often demonstrated by many reports that this House has considered. I remind the House of the tragic cases of people such as Christopher Clunis, Alan Boland and Andrew Robinson.
The Government's review of health authority performance has found the mental health services wanting. Will the Government now call a halt to further closures of psychiatric beds at least until these new measures have been given a chance to develop? Will appropriate residential care play an important part in the new spectrum of care programme to which the Secretary of State now lends his support? At the same time, and very importantly, will the Government insist as part of their apparently new, tough line with health authorities, that all those authorities have in place proper care programme policies? The Statement says that they expect full implementation from 1st April. The care programme approach, which is supposed to ensure that all mentally ill patients have a care programme in place before they are discharged into the community, was originally intended to be implemented by 1991. In 1996, it is still not universal. That is disgraceful. Perhaps the care programme approach should be included in the new Patient's Charter when the draft is finalised—which, as the Minister explained, will also be in April.
We welcome the new Patient's Charter, which, as the Minister said, sets out what services patients will have a right to expect. However, I add a note of caution about the value of such a charter in this special area of care. Many mentally ill people are confused, isolated and without personal support. Some will undoubtedly have willing families and friends who will be able to act as their advocates. But others will be literally unable to understand or to pursue their care entitlements. Many noble Lords will remember the evidence of Christopher Clunis, the schizophrenic who murdered Jonathan Zito on the London Underground. Clunis, although he realised he was in trouble, simply had no idea where he should look for help or what help was available. He continued to walk the streets. A new Patient's Charter will not solve that kind of situation, which I fear is very common. I hope that the Government will not have too much confidence in it as an instrument of policy.
996
Even in ideal circumstances, a Patient's Charter will work only if sufficient financial and staff resources are in place to deliver the services promised. Will the Minister explain whether any of the financial arrangements announced in the Statement today represent new money? Will she also tell the House how the Challenge Fund money and the mental illness grant can be used specifically to improve the numbers of healthcare professionals working in this very difficult area of care? The Royal College of Psychiatrists has complained that there are staff shortages at consultant, registrar and junior doctor levels. The Royal College of Nursing reported in January that there are fewer community psychiatric nurses working in England today than there were in 1990—although the past six years has been the time when more and more mental health patients have been discharged into the community. Today, only one in five people diagnosed as schizophrenic and living in the community has access to a community psychiatric nurse.
Staff shortages and low morale among those who are working under great stress make it very difficult indeed to deliver successful care. Perhaps the Minister will explain how the new measures will ease shortages and raise moral.
On these Benches, we welcome the Government's overall review of mental health services. However, we find it extremely disturbing. Despite the confidence expressed in the Statement about future plans and performance, it is disgraceful that, for example, the North Thames region reported that none of its health authorities presently has in place a comprehensive set of services for mentally ill adults. Two-thirds did not expect to be able to offer comprehensive services by the end of this next year, even with extra help. Community care is failing very badly, and this package of proposals is inadequate to deal with that failure.
Just over a year ago the Mental Health Task Force—a national body set up by the Department of Health—published its findings on London. It stated:
"Patients with severe and chronic mental disabilities are being discharged without adequate supervision, or the provision necessary to meet their housing, social and health needs. This could incur risks not only to public safety but also to the safety of the individuals concerned".—[Official Report, 16/3/95; col. 940.]
Unless we have a far-reaching, much broader strategy than is represented by the Statement, one designed to address acute bed shortages and staff shortages as well as overall care and supervision in the community, it seems very likely that the alarming picture painted by the Mental Health Task Force will continue.
Earl Russell: My Lords, Whitehallspeak has a certain residual honesty about it which I rather like. We hear in the Statement that the measures,
"constitute a substantial contribution to the progress we need to make".
That, I think, is accurately translated as, "We believe this is a step in the right direction, but a very little one". We on these Benches would not dissent from that reading of the Statement.

997
I was glad to hear the Government say that the care in the community policy, as it relates to mental health—that is all that we are discussing at the moment—never meant the abandonment of a residential care policy. I remind the Minister of some figures that we discussed during the passage of the Mental Health (Patients in the Community) Bill from the Royal College of Physicians on the shortage of mental health beds in London, and from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice about the number of occasions on which people in need of mental health treatment have to be sent to prison. In the light of those, will the noble Baroness tell the House how many more mental health beds, either acute or long-stay, will be provided as a result of the Statement? In assessing the needs, I hope that she will take account of other pressures on mental health beds which may result from increasing homelessness in a wide number of contexts. That is one factor that exposes weaknesses in people's mental health make-up. In fact, it accounts for quite a large amount of the pressure on mental health beds.
Will the noble Baroness also consult, first, the National Association of Citizens' Advice Bureaux, and secondly, her noble and right honourable friends in the Department of Social Security about the plans to remove the mobility component of the disability living allowance for patients in hospital? That will fall particularly severely on mental health patients whose state is perhaps not particularly acute and who are able at present to maintain a contact with friends, relatives and neighbours. For them, such contact will be very much harder in future.
We hear about every health authority having plans. There are plenty of plans. I recall listening to Mr. William Waldegrave, when he was still an undergraduate, referring to Her Majesty's Stationery Office. I believe he described it as, "the large intestine of the body politic producing excreta of national plans". I do wonder whether very much has really changed. What matters is not whether we have plans, but whether those plans are capable of being delivered.
We hear of £53 million being devoted to plans. From where will that money be taken? Is it new money? Or is it at the expense of some other programme that the health authorities might otherwise have undertaken—and if so, what?
I am glad to hear that there is concern about the care programme approach. I am also glad to hear the Government say that a charter by itself does not raise standards. I can recall Mr. Roger Freeman, when he was a junior Minister, in 1991, saying that the Citizen's Charter, by definition, could not be used to solve major problems. At the time Mr. Freeman was speaking about the London-Tilbury and Southend line. How right he was.
I want to know not only whether there is a charter but what it covers and what means there are to make it effective. I should like to know whether the charter will cover the discharge of mental health patients from prison and what arrangements are to be made for them. I want the noble Baroness to understand, as I am sure
998
she does, just how irritating—I could use stronger language—it can be to public service workers who find themselves required to achieve targets under charters at precisely the moment when the means of achieving those targets are taken away. There is no procedure in our public service, and especially not in our public expenditure round, for matching the amount of funds given to various departments in the public services with the targets that they are meant to meet. So, if the targets go up and the funds go down, those who are trying to bridge the gap feel that they are being torn in two. It is not a particularly comfortable feeling.
In this context, we need to bear in mind the remarks of my noble friend Lady Hamwee about the competing demands on local authority resources. Especially we must remember the tendency of mental health sufferers to gravitate to a few particular areas of the country. They go not just to large towns. It is more specific than that. They gravitate in particular to places where there are large concentrations of cheap, privately rented property and in fact to certain corners of London. Those areas often face quite special burdens. I should like to think that there have been discussions between the Department of Health and the Department of the Environment about adjusting local authority revenue support grants accordingly. If that is not done, I do not believe that the Statement will succeed in delivering the changes that we all wish.
A total sum of £95 million has been mentioned. Can the noble Baroness confirm or deny that, of that £95 million, only £20 million is new money now allocated for the first time? Is she aware of and does she accept the figure offered by MIND, which suggests—to me rather more realistically—that something of the order of £300 million is needed? If that amount cannot be raised, we must return to Sir Keith Thomas's definition of magic: if magic be defined as the use of ineffective techniques to allay anxiety when perhaps no effective ones are available, then perhaps no society will ever be free of it. I understand that, but I should like some effective ones sometime.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I should like to respond now to the two members of the opposite parties who have had a very quick opportunity to see the Statement and to comment on it. Let me start with the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, who came in strongly to say that community care is failing. The purpose of the Statement today is to put community care into context. In the past, community care has not considered the whole spectrum of care. There was concentration on moving long-stay patients out of huge mental institutions and into the community. Perhaps there has not been enough concentration on those who are severely mentally ill and need a different kind of provision of acute care in hospitals and also with 24-hour staff nursing beds. That is one of the main planks of the Statement today in our policy for the future.
It would be a pity if community care were totally rubbished. I used to be responsible for four of the largest mental institutions that served London. They were built in the last century. When I became regional

999
chairman, I looked through some of the reports. In all, we had 20 major inquiries into long-stay institutions. One has only to read those inquiries to realise what an utterly miserable and dejected life many of those people suffered. We had to do something about that. It is quite right that the majority of those people no longer live in long-stay institutions. Again, one only has to visit them in the community to see their quality of life, a quality which was denied them in the past.
However, there is the other end of the spectrum. That is the end on which my right honourable friend is concentrating today. We are going to put huge resources into mental health services but they are targeted at the severe end. Although the number of beds has been increased, it has been done over a relatively short time. We want to ensure that that momentum is maintained.
The noble Baroness mentioned Christopher Clunis and those very severe cases where homicide has been committed. She described them as quite common. That is not true. They involve a tiny percentage of people. Indeed, there is no evidence at all—
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, with the Minister's permission, perhaps I may intervene at this point. Perhaps she slightly misheard what I said. I did not say that cases involving homicide were common. Indeed, I should always be at pains to say that people who are severely mentally ill, as Christopher Clunis was severely mentally ill, are more likely, as the statistics always show, to do damage to themselves than to other people. I said that it was common for people who were supposedly under community care not apparently to be properly supervised.
Baroness Cumberlege: I apologise to the noble Baroness if I misunderstood her. Certainly, she will appreciate that the new programme approach that we are adopting will try to address that problem. Indeed, where it works well, we know that it is extremely effective.
Concern has been expressed about the increased numbers of psychiatrists and psychiatric nurses that are necessary. Growth in the past has been considerable. But we recognise that in future there will be an even greater demand. That is why we have put so much resource into this initiative. If we consider just the past five years, over 14,000 nurses have received training as mental health nurses. Again, there has been an increase in the number of psychiatrists. Indeed, medical schools will take an initial 10 per cent. more medical students from now until the year 2000. It is not a matter of funding in this case; it is a matter of ensuring that people want to enter those particular occupations and specialties. We are aware of the vacancy rate that exists at the moment among psychiatrists. The posts are funded; they are there and they are allocated. It is a matter now of ensuring that they are filled. A working party has been set up by the department with the Royal College of Psychiatrists to look at those specific issues.
We are anxious—my right honourable friend has given an undertaking in the past—to ensure that beds are not closed until there is adequate alternative facility made. It will not always be beds. Sometimes it will
1000
consist of emergency teams; there will be a strengthening of community services through GPs employing community psychiatric nurses or having them attached to their practices; and there is a demand for day centres. Above all, we know that we need to keep track of those people who leave intensive care—those who leave acute services—so that they do not get lost in the community. That is taken care of by the Bill which was passed by this House earlier this year and will come into force in April next year.
Perhaps I may now turn to the question of funding. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, asked whether this was new money. We are making available an extra £40 million over the next two years in addition to the £53 million from health authorities' own plans. They have already told us that that is the investment they want to make in mental health services next year. We know that every year the National Health Service receives an increase in funding. We expect the vast majority of that £53 million to come from the growth money that the National Health Service will be receiving through the PES round that was announced in November. We also expect local authorities to put in money from their allocations. They are also receiving additional money, but some of that money will be matched. We expect them to use the money they receive through the community care funds, the mental illness grant and other specific funds for this purpose.
The Patient's Charter in all its various forms—we now have a number of charters—has had an enormous impact, particularly on issues such as waiting times. We have seen waiting times plummet and we know that because we have set standards. Those standards are being met and they are being monitored. The noble Earl asked how we would ensure that the standards are met. There is specific monitoring of the care programme approach to ensure that the standards are met. We now have a system through the reformed National Health Service that enables that to happen through the regional offices.
I appreciate that noble Lords have not had a chance to look at the charter. I shall certainly place one in the Library if that is helpful. It takes into account the care programme approach so that relatives and carers can see whether that is being followed.
4.41 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I welcome in general the proposals in the Statement. On one part of it, while the large majority of schizophrenics are not violent or dangerous, there are a few who are. Will the Government do all they can to ensure that the community care system identifies those very few and keeps them away from the public and under supervision for their own safety? Will the Government also resist attempts by civil liberties organisations to let such people freely into the community?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the care programme approach is intended to do just that—to ensure that when people leave hospital they have a key worker who makes sure they do not get lost in the labyrinth of different services supplied by the National

1001
Health Service and also by social services. One of the strategies in the policy is to ensure that social services and the health service work more closely together. We accept that some people will need secure accommodation probably for the rest of their lives. But I do not think we should underestimate the enormous progress that has been made, particularly through the new drugs that have become available. We see people now who in the past would have been kept in acute care. They are now holding down jobs, leading a normal life, and in many cases a very happy family life as well.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, arising out of what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, will the Government pay particular attention in future to the role of the so-called anonymous lay managers? There have been some cases where they have overruled the views of professional doctors and psychiatrists and have let out dangerous mental patients into the community against all advice. Who are they? Why are they allowed to remain anonymous? Why are they allowed to overrule the professionals? Will the Government pay particular attention to this point in future as there have been cases where dangerous mental patients have been allowed back into the community, without adequate supervision, to murder and rape?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, mental health managers are not necessarily people in pinstriped suits who are employed by the health authority. Managers in these terms are often lay people who are brought onto a board. The National Association of Health Authorities and Trusts, the Mental Health Act Commission and the Royal College of Psychiatrists share the noble Lord's concern. They have set up a group specifically to review this role of mental health managers. They will be reporting very soon in the spring.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that we have not got to the heart of the matter? We have talked about money; we have talked about beds; we have talked about homelessness; but we have not talked about the best way to treat a schizophrenic. I have had to do this work myself in the community and I have great sympathy with community psychiatric nurses and social workers. If a patient is discharged from hospital and he has to be supervised in the community it is impossible to be with that patient 24 hours a day. One problem—I am sure my noble friend will agree with me—is that some schizophrenics will not take their medication. If they take their medication there are not many problems. But how does a community psychiatric nurse, good though he or she may be, or a social worker, good though he or she may be, make a patient take his medication? The patient may have good accommodation at night but there is always that moment when he has not taken his medication.
We have closed down a number of centres where patients used to be able to go, morning, noon and night. At the centres a nurse would be on duty and food would be supplied. It is also to be regretted that we have closed down the occupation centres. They provided dignity for patients. They could be under supervision—we tried to
1002
make it not appear to be so—and they could do a job of work. In Oxford I used to be in touch with the Cowley works which would Send to us simple jobs which people could do. Cowley would pay the going rate to the patients. In that way patients were supervised throughout the whole day without it appearing that they were being policed. They were provided with dignity.
I do not think we have considered enough how we should deal with schizophrenic patients in the community who will not take their medication. We really should remember the families of schizophrenics. Schizophrenics are an agony to families. I have seen families destroyed because their schizophrenic son has disappeared. They wonder what has happened to him. They do not know. I know it is felt that it is wrong to supervise by laying down lines of supervision, but we have to do that with some patients. The only way to do it is to give them a dignified life. That means giving them somewhere to live where they are supervised, befriended and cared for, where they can work during the day and earn a living, but where they are in care and supervised.
I feel humble in speaking in front of noble Lords who are doctors, but I do not think the doctors have set out for social workers and community workers exactly how such patients should be treated. All the money in the world and all the community care in the world will not make a difference unless we give real thought to what these patients really need and how they can be cared for in a dignified but supervised way.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I agree with much of what my noble friend has said. Schizophrenia is a quite hard diagnosis to make. We know that it can vary enormously, from those who are extremely ill to those who have bouts of illness from time to time and are easier to manage. The supervision registers which we are putting into place in all health authorities identify those people who may be of particular risk to themselves and to others.
Our second initiative is the new power of supervised discharge under the Mental Health Act which, as I have said, noble Lords passed earlier this year. That enables the re-admission of a patient if they are not complying with the treatment. So there is a much greater grip on the situation. I agree so much with what my noble friend has said about ensuring that people are occupied during the day. One of the difficulties in the past has been when people have been discharged from hospital. Their basic routines, not only of where they sleep, how they eat, how they spend their weekends and whether there are employment opportunities, have been neglected in the past. That is why we want the care programme approach which will address these issues.
As regards families, I share my noble friend's sympathy for the families who take on these very difficult responsibilities. But through the Patient's Charter, which we are putting out in draft form for consultation today, we would involve families in the

1003
assessment of the patient and also in the discharge arrangements. That is very important because so often it is the family which is left to pick up the pieces.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, if I understood the noble Baroness correctly, she said that her department would be reviewing the future of mental health review tribunals separately. Is she aware that that will come as tidings of great joy to those who have to operate the system? Will she ensure that the consideration which she indicated a few moments ago in answer to my noble friend as regards management meetings is undertaken jointly with consideration for the future of the mental health review tribunals? The relationship between the two procedures gives rise to a great deal of confusion.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, at this moment we are not reviewing the tribunals but the mental health managers. We have some difficulty with the tribunals in that they are part of the Mental Health Act. It may be that the 1983 Act will need some sort of revision or review in time. I am very sorry to disappoint the noble and learned Lord, but that is the situation.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I very much support what my noble friends Lady Faithfull and Lord Campbell of Croy said. I also congratulate the Government on tackling the problem. Like other noble Lords, I have doubts whether they will be able to do so because I do not believe that there is enough money around in the country let alone in the Department of Health. But let us see how that goes.
When my noble friend was making the Statement she mentioned a number of reports, papers, plans and all kinds of other things. It seemed to me that some of them might be in print and some not. It would be helpful if everything that was mentioned by my noble friend, and not only the charter, was available for us to read as well as the Statement itself. There is a great deal there to be read because we have a great deal of studying to do. We are talking blind from this side of the House. Noble Lords opposite always get their papers in advance, and how lucky they are!
Lord Graham of Edmonton: How wrong you are!
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I do not share my noble friend's pessimism. I believe that in time we shall get this matter right. I recall child abuse 20 years ago when it was a huge issue. By ensuring that we had key workers and a number of other procedures, we have managed now to make progress on that front. There are five documents. There is The Spectrum of Care; there is another document on 24-hour nursed beds, an audit pack on the care programme approach; the draft charter for mental health services; and the application criteria for the mental health Challenge Fund. I shall ensure that they are all in the Library.
Lord Hayhoe: My Lords, reference has been made to mental health managers. While I accept that on occasions mistakes have been made, in these exchanges it would be wrong if some reference were not made to the immense amount of work that they do in a voluntary
1004
capacity. That has been a duty laid on them by Parliament, who decided that this lay element should make the decisions. In those circumstances, I hope the Minister will agree that it is right that praise should be given to the great service that the vast majority of these managers give to the community. I have a little knowledge of it myself. I believe that the individuals concerned deserve praise rather than condemnation and criticism.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend. He is right in that we owe a huge debt in this country to the number of people who serve as mental health managers. Sometimes they have not only a difficult but an impossible task to carry out. They are expected to make some very difficult judgments. I would like to be associated with my noble friend's comments.
Lord Finsberg: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that there is one point that worries me very much? I first became associated with mental health when I went over Friern Barnet hospital with Richard Crossman and another Jay, Mrs. Peggy Jay—a much underrated person. I saw those enormous buildings and it was a ghastly sight.
As a junior health Minister I had the responsibility for taking the 1983 Bill through the House. I could never be satisfied that the mechanism was there to ensure that some over-zealous doctor did not discharge a patient just because he had been told by a town hall bureaucrat that they could look after him. I always felt that that was not possible. I would like to know whether we now feel that this problem can be overcome. One of the reasons why people are still drifting around is the semi-promises given to hospital doctors which are not carried out.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I hope that psychiatrists are robust enough to follow their clinical judgment and that undue pressures are not put on them. It is very difficult for them because they have to balance human rights with containment and the interests of the patient coming first. There are also the interests of the general public to be considered. I believe that in time, with the care programme approach, more careful assessment and more appropriate facilities supplied for these people, not only in the community but with the 24-hour nursed beds, the crisis teams, the working of 24-hour community teams, intensive home support and a whole range of other services that need to be supplied, we will make the psychiatrist's job that much easier.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, will she confirm that her reply to her noble friend Lord Mottistone about the five documents to be published did not include the full review of health authority mental health services, on which we understood the Statement was based?
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I should have made that plain. It is actually sub-titled The Spectrum of Care.

Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Bill [H.L.]
4.58 p.m.
Second Reading debate resumed.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, my noble friend the Minister has introduced the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Bill in his normally clear and eloquent manner. He should be congratulated on presenting a complicated Bill in such a user-friendly manner. It contains important new provisions for housing grants. There is no doubt that action of the kind proposed in Part I of the Bill to help a local authority move from a requirement to approve mandatory grants to a more strategic, discretionary approach, is very welcome. Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, I believe that authorities should be free to decide their priorities in this regard.
These proposals should allow the same amount of investment and therefore maximise the impact on the repair of unfit dwellings. I understand that disabled facilities grants will continue to be mandatory. This Bill should make it easier for disabled people living with a relative to get grants.
I know from my own experience how pleased architects will be with Part III. They have been campaigning for some time to amend the Architects Registration Acts of 1931 to 1969. The proposals in the Bill will allow the profession to create a much smaller and more efficient body for the registration of architects. Demands on qualified architects become more complex and far-reaching every year. Statutory independent registration will assist in the development of the profession and with the protection of the public.
The proposals in Part IV will provide a single statutory basis for the single regeneration budget and are designed to assist good management of the Government's regeneration policy. I would have no quarrel with that.
However, it is on Part II that I should like to concentrate my few remarks. As we have heard from my noble friend, Part II concerns the construction industry and seeks to provide a framework for fairer contractual arrangements and better working relationships in the construction industry. That part of the Bill has its origin in the 1994 Latham Report, Constructing the Team, as indicated by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, and as my noble friend commented in his introduction. It was an heroic effort by Sir Michael Latham to identify some of the problems in the construction industry, particularly the adversarial nature of the way in which it conducts business and the extent to which it resorts to litigation to resolve disputes. The Latham Report suggested that the industry should change the culture of the way in which it does business and move to one based on co-operation. At the same time, as we have heard, a target has been set to achieve a 30 per cent. real cost reduction by the year 2000 across the UK construction industry as a whole.
I should like to pay tribute to Sir Michael for the important contribution that he has made not only in preparing that important document, but in the continuing
1006
work that he now does as chairman of the Construction Industry Board, which was set up in February 1995. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment acts as president of the CIB. That demonstrates the Government's commitment to support the desire of the industry to change its ways.
The provisions in Part II concentrate on two areas that were examined in the Latham Report and would apply to all construction contracts except those signed by a householder or those involving process engineering. It is important that the Bill includes public sector contracts as well as private sector contracts.
Clause 102(2) lists the exclusions from the provisions of the Bill. There may be some need to review that list in Committee, as some concern has already been expressed in the House that too many contracts would fall outside the scope of those provisions. Is it really intended, for instance, that, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, suggested, all maintenance contracts should be excluded? Should all off-site fabrication, so much a part of modern construction technique, be excluded? Will Clause 102(2)(c) put the construction of a supermarket outside the scope of the Bill?
The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, criticised Clause 102(4) which gives the Secretary of State powers to alter the provisions of the previous subsections. We shall have to wait and see what the report of the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee says, but the Secretary of State has to make any of those changes by order. I believe that Clause 140 would make those subject to the negative resolution procedure in Parliament, and in my view that provides a sufficient safeguard.
The first important proposal is contained in Clause 105 which introduces a right to refer a dispute arising under a contract for resolution by a speedy adjudication procedure under a scheme for construction contracts, unless the contract contains an equivalent procedure.
Although the scheme I mentioned will be brought forward by the Government under secondary legislation and the negative resolution procedure, there are on the face of the Bill what are intended to be the criteria for this speedy adjudication procedure involving timings and the duties of the adjudicator. It is interesting to note that at present even the GC Works 1 Edition 3 government contract, as I am advised, would have a faulty adjudication procedure judged by these standards, and the Def Con 2000 contract (just published) would not meet the criteria. Whereas I believe it to be quite right that the criteria should be spelt out on the face of the Bill, they will be underpinned by the scheme for construction contracts which has yet to see the light of day. It would be of great assistance to the House at Committee stage if a draft of the scheme for construction contracts could be available at that time, and I would ask my noble friend Lord Lucas to inform the House this evening if that will be the case.
The second proposal would require contracts to provide an adequate mechanism for determining the amount and timing of payments. The parties are free to agree the amounts of the stage payments and the intervals, but must include a final date for each payment.

1007
In Clause 105 the criteria for the procedure of adjudication are set out on the face of the Bill. Perhaps there is a case for the same treatment to cover "an adequate mechanism" and the criteria for this mechanism should be placed on the face of the Bill rather than having to delve into the scheme for construction contracts.
Furthermore, I should like to draw my noble friend's attention to the phrase in the Bill in Clause 106(2) which indicates that parties are "free to agree". I do not believe that phrase should be capable of interpretation to mean that small sub-contractors should be forced to agree wholly onerous conditions on a "take it or leave it" approach by a main contractor. Perhaps that condition in the contract could also be referred to the adjudicator. This is again a matter to be dealt with at Committee stage, and I would not expect my noble friend to deal with it tonight.
"Set-off" is a well-established principle in common law, but in the construction industry has been subject to grave abuse. Clause 108 sets out a way of regulating any form of withholding payments, including the use of the adjudicator under the scheme of construction contracts. A new right is given to contractors if a payment is not made without the proper notification. The contractor now has the right to suspend work on the contract after seven days' notice and can even leave the site without the risk of breaching the contract and the contract being terminated as would be the position at present. Another important change is introduced by Clause 110 which prohibits the so-called "pay when paid" clauses in contracts; or more strictly makes any such clause in a contract to be unenforceable except where a third party has become insolvent.
The Bill represents an important collection of improvements to contracts in the construction industry and I am pleased to learn that the industry is in agreement that this legislation is needed. One might ask: if it is agreed, why is there a need for legislation? However, it is important to achieve a level playing field for the industry and to make sure that all parts of the industry should be bound by these sensible provisions.
As the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, said, not all of the recommendations in the Latham Report have been agreed by the industry in time for this legislation. I believe that that is a matter for regret. In this context, I would mention three rather important areas where agreement has not yet been reached: trust funds, liability law reform, and compulsory latent defect insurance.
Trust funds are designed to make the cascade system of payment in the industry—client to main contractor, main contractor to subcontractor and so on—less exposed to the insolvency of one participant. If a main contractor fails the subcontractors will be treated as unsecured creditors for work they have already done. Bad debt insurance is possible but is another overhead cost at a time when most firms are trying to cut their overhead costs. However trust funds would tie up a huge amount of capital which could have a serious effect on the industry and the wider economy and clients still retain the worry that there remains a serious risk of paying twice in the event of a main contractor insolvency.
1008
With regard to liability law reform, I understand that that has been passed to the Law Commission for its consideration. I can only say I hope that it can proceed expeditiously for as regards the construction industry a mass of reports have dealt with this matter; from the 1988 Building Users Insurance Against Latent Defects known as the BUILD report to the 1989 report prepared by Professor Likierman entitled Professional Liability—report of the study teams published by HMSO and of course the more recent Latham Report of 1994 and even since then there have been three reports from the working group of experts set up under the "follow-up" to the Latham Report. There may be other professions not so far advanced in this matter, but that should not prevent the Law Commission concentrating on the gaps rather than going back to square one.
The problem with latent defects is that there remains an unacceptable level of defective work and "no-fault insurance" will do nothing to reduce that level. Even then, I understand that there are no satisfactory policies of insurance available at reasonable cost.
As I have indicated, the industry has not reached agreement on those matters and further consultation will be needed before progress can be made. In my view it would be premature to try to amend the Bill in the knowledge that consensus has not been reached.
I have been able to welcome these proposals put forward by the Government as sensible, timely and an appropriate response to the wishes of the industry as identified in the Latham Report. There may be one or two suggestions to be made at Committee stage to improve the Bill, as I have indicated. In the meantime, it seems to me that the Government and the industry are moving in the right direction.
5.12 p.m.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, I should begin, under the current dispensation, by reminding the House, if it needs reminding, of my interest in the construction industry as a civil engineer of 50 years or so standing, although it is quite a long time since anyone paid me for doing any civil engineering. I approach the Bill as a civil engineer, since once a civil engineer, always a civil engineer.
I intend to deal with Part II and touch briefly on Part III. I welcome Part II, in part. I have a substantial number of niggles which I shall touch on only briefly this afternoon, but which will surely arise in Committee and at later stages of the Bill.
I must start with a welcome which might appear to many noble Lords as somewhat trivial, but it is not to an engineer. Nor will it be to architects. Clause 102(1)(a) makes a distinction between buildings and structures. That might not strike lawyers or other people as important, but it is significant to engineers. It is something that I have pressed upon the House many times since 1988. I achieved a considerable amount of success a year ago in the Environment Bill when the noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater, agreed with me that that distinction should be made. He brought it into that Bill. However, this is the first time that it has appeared in a Bill as originally drafted. I have the noble Viscount to thank for that small

1009
matter. I do so publicly, honestly, and openly, and if he is around later, I shall buy him a small, inexpensive drink on the strength of it.
What worries me about Part II is that large parts of it depend upon the scheme which has been mentioned and which appears in Clause 111. It is difficult to discuss a Bill sensibly if the scheme has not been published. I know that discussions are going on, and no doubt at some stage the scheme will be published. I believe that the scheme, or at any rate a substantial part of it, should be published before we come to the end of the proceedings on the Bill in this House and not at some later stage. We should know, at least before Third Reading, and preferably before Report, what the scheme is all about, because as it stands it could be about more or less anything. When will it appear? I have no doubt that we shall be told. When it appears we should be told—the noble Viscount mentioned this—how it is to be presented to the House and debated here.
I have one minor point to make. It is a Committee point which I am sure the noble Earl will remember in due course. I wonder why in Clause 111(3) the Minister who deals with the scheme is the Secretary of State, presumably for the Environment, in England and Wales, but the Lord Advocate in Scotland. I cannot remember who the Lord Advocate is for the minute, but I am sure that he is an excellent and eloquent man. I know what his job is but I cannot remember who he is. I am sure that he is a splendid fellow, but he is not the first man I would go to for advice on the construction industry. I am sure that some reply on that will be forthcoming.
I shall turn briefly to Clause 102. My noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel dealt with it fairly convincingly. The clause is, quite frankly, a shambles. It cannot be permitted to stand in its present form. We have a situation where, for example, tunnelling turns up in Clause 102(1)(e) as though it were a subsidiary matter. The Channel Tunnel is not a subsidiary matter. Tunnelling should appear in Clause 102(1)(b). It is a Committee point and it is one to which we should come. It is a Committee point, but it is typical of the shambles which Clause 102 represents.
The point that really worries me is the second part of the clause where the exceptions are set out. I spent a large part of my life as a young engineer designing structural steelwork: columns, beams, gantries, roof trusses and such things. They are all excluded. That is ridiculous. They cannot be excluded. I do not know how on earth anyone can exclude a nuclear power station. Perhaps I have misunderstood the Bill. It seems to me that nuclear power stations and some other things are excluded for some peculiar reason. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, thought that it might be because some of them are privatised industries. I do not believe that the Government would approach it in via manner, or do I? I am not too sure.
I turn to adjudication. The noble Earl said that adjudication was quite recent. He was right in a technical sense in that the word has been used only recently, but traditionally the adjudicator in the construction industry has been the engineer or the
1010
architect. I have been an adjudicator on many occasions dealing with disputes in the course of a contract. I have dealt with them all in my customary bumbling manner and I have hoped to produce a reasonable result at the end of the day. The idea of adjudication is not new, it is merely the name "adjudicator" that is new.
There is a problem with that clause because I am sure that the draftsmen are in total confusion as regards adjudication and arbitration. Adjudication is an interim process which takes place during the construction period, deals with disputes as they arise and reaches a resolution. However, it is not a final resolution because the contractor and the client can then go to arbitration. The difference between adjudication and arbitration is that the decision of the arbitrator is final and cannot be appealed against, which is not true of the activities of the adjudicator. The paragraph in Clause 105(4) which refers to the Arbitration Act should be removed because it demonstrates a mistake.
Furthermore, I am sure that the timescale given in the Bill for adjudication is wrong. It could apply to certain small disputes. However, anyone who has dealt with civil engineering contracts and is aware of the famous Clause 12 in the standard conditions of contracts of the Institution of Civil Engineers, which deals with unforeseen obstacles and circumstances in particular as regards foundation excavations, knows that no adjudication can take place within the timescale proposed in the Bill. That must be reconsidered.
I agree with the strictures of my noble friend Lord Williams as regards the Government's somersault on the registration of architects. However, I believe that for all their peculiarities of acrobatic activity the Government landed on their feet. They have got it right, subject to any reservations which the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, may have. Whatever reservations he has I shall certainly agree with them.
I believe that the registration of architects is a good idea and although it is outwith the ambit of the Bill I would like to see a similar registration scheme applied to consulting engineers. I am not sure that the various engineering institutions will agree with me, but that is my final comment for which I hope the institution will forgive me.
5.22 p.m.
Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank: My Lords, using a colourful image, the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, called the Bill a mishmash and a curate's egg. I assume that he meant a scrambled curate's egg. I should describe the Bill as a conglomerate which was crying out for demerger. If each part were floated on its merits, Part I might sink without trace, given the depressing analysis of it by my noble friend Lady Hamwee.
On the other hand, Part II, with all the reservations that have been made today, and Part III would find their backers and it is to those two parts that I wish to refer. I believe that they might be better as separate Bills but, nevertheless, I welcome them and commend the intentions behind them.

1011
I ought to say something that has not yet been said. Any discussion of the future arrangements for the construction industry and for architects who work within it must be prefaced by a reminder that we are not dealing with a confident and prosperous industry but one which has enjoyed few of the benefits of economic recovery and feels very worried indeed about its prospects.
I noticed, for example, that the CBI's economic situation report for January 1996 stated that a balance of firms in the constructions industry expect to cut back on investment in buildings.
"Cuts on buildings are foreseen by all firm sizes, except those employing more than 5,000 staff who expect a very small increase".
Referring to building materials it stated:
"The downturn in building material trends has intensified since October with both output and orders suffering a heavy fall, the biggest decline amongst the main sectors. This reflects the deteriorating climate in the construction industry".
I am sure that that view is echoed in the statistics of the Minister's department. It is a depressing picture and we should not forget the uncertainty within the industry.
Given the contents of the Bill, perhaps I may say in parenthesis that I greatly regret the continued uncertainty about the future of the Building Research Establishment. It has served industry with great distinction for many years. I believe that it is wrong to privatise it if improving efficiency and effectiveness are now on the Government's agenda, as Part II of the Bill shows. It is relevant to consider the comments of the Building Material Producers, which is a free enterprise group and not too committed to the public sector. In its January bulletin it states:
"Any effort to sell the BRE to the highest commercial bidder, with no thought for the consequences for the industry, must be resisted, as must any effort to break up the existing multi-disciplinary core of the Building Research Establishment".
That is an important message that we should not forget, although it is not directly relevant to today's Bill. It is in sharp contrast with the endorsement given by the Building Material Producers to the Government's proposals in Part II to implement the Latham Report. I broadly welcome those proposals and wish to add my congratulations to Sir. Michael Latham on producing a detailed and interesting report remarkably quickly.
As I cannot forbear to give congratulations today, including to the Government, perhaps I may say that I welcome the fact that, although there is still a good deal of unfinished business, they have brought forward Part II of the Bill, even though it might have formed a separate Bill. As other noble Lords have said, Part II is best dealt with in detail during later stages of the Bill.
I agree with other noble Lords about the importance of Clause 105 and the necessity to get it absolutely right. That will need the most careful scrutiny.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, was harsh in his strictures on the building industry. I do not wholly dissent from every one of them, but recently the building industry has made remarkable strides to put its own house in order. One of the best developments is the emergence of the Construction Industry Council which represents more than 49 organisations in the industry, which in turn represent nearly 350,000 constituent
1012
professionals. I was involved at the birth of the council and was active for five years. It is right to remember the late Professor Sir Ted Happeold who was a remarkably visionary structural engineer within the industry and a moving force behind its creation. I believe that the council in its present form owes much to Sir Ian Dixon for his robust and effective leadership. In none of those respects would I exclude the present chairman Sir Robin Wilson. It has been a significant development and I have been glad to be associated with it.
I turn to Part III. As the noble Earl said in his introductory remarks, I have an interest to declare. The noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, was most foolish in saying that he would follow me wherever I led him. Perhaps I may make two matters clear. First, I was director general of the RIBA until February 1994 and a consultant to it for a year after that. Therefore, I was closely associated with the negotiations between the profession and DoE Ministers and officials about what are the contents of Part III. On the other hand, I speak on Second Reading and at subsequent stages very much for myself and I must not claim in any way to be a representative of the RIBA, which will make its views more widely known to noble Lords if it wishes to.
Part III of the Bill effectively implements an undertaking on the main features of the agreement reached with Sir George Young, who was the Minister concerned, on 21st June 1994 and the details which were subject to six months' negotiation thereafter. Without going into the history of the matter, I am glad that the DoE recognised defeat and abandoned in October 1993 its initial and declared intention to get rid of registration altogether. The noble Earl rather wisely glossed over that reversal, but I agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Howie, that the Government landed on their feet the right way up in that regard.
I am glad also that the Government recognised and abandoned last summer the hopeless, and in my view inappropriate, attempt to amend the Architects Registration Acts by means of a Private Member's Bill.
What we have before us today reflects credit both on the RIBA—the professional body of architects which tends to have individual and non-conforming views—and ARCUK, the existing registration body which has not always found it easy to speak with a single clear voice. In a sense, Part III is a result of discussion and co-operation and I am glad about that. To that extent it represents an agreed solution to the problem of architects' registration.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Williams, that since 1834 the RIBA has represented the profession itself, but the role of this new registration body, like the old one, is to represent the public interest. Those are distinct and separate roles. It will be for your Lordships' House and another place to ensure that the new body does indeed represent the public interest in the fullest possible way.
I make four other brief observations. First, although the RIBA represents some 70 to 80 per cent. of the members of the profession—and I did so for six years as its director general—it is important that the new arrangements are fair to the so-called unattached

1013
architects who choose not to join the RIBA. The Bill should and indeed does recognise the anxieties that they have expressed from time to time.
Secondly—and this follows from what I said earlier about the respective roles of the professional organisation and the body which represents the public interest—the new body should not be allowed to become a rival to the RIBA. In representing the public interest, its task is quite different and it should not at any time forget that.
Thirdly—and here I refer to the role of the profession—the profession will serve its clients and the public best if standards in education are set and maintained by the RIBA, which should also have an important role in ensuring a higher standard of discipline and competence.
There have been references today to the Warne Report, which the Government first endorsed and then abandoned. I think that Mr. John Warne was a notable public servant and although I disagreed with the conclusions of his report, there was a great deal of good sense in what he said in the course of writing it. The whole profession should take note of that, however much it wishes to retain registration, as it is now able to do.
Fourthly—and again it follows from what I said previously—it is important that the eight lay members of the new board are carefully chosen so that they are not from other professions which may be seen to be competitive with architects or from the supply side of the industry. Its members should comprise independent men and women who wish to perform a public service and represent the clients. Such members may come from housing associations, the National Consumer Council and similar backgrounds.
In deciding what that composition should be, I ask those responsible to bear in mind that a large proportion of architects are either single-handed or working in small practices. Many of their clients are small, once-in-a-lifetime clients. It is they who must be remembered and represented in the lay membership of the board.
I know that there are those within the profession and the RIBA who are deeply concerned about, as they see it, handing over their future to a body in which there is a majority of lay members. I understand that anxiety and it is for that reason that I ask the Government to consider very carefully who those lay members will be. But I supported that principle when I had some direct responsibility in the negotiations and I support it now because I believe that it is consistent with a body charged with the public interest by Parliament that there should be a lay majority in future. If this Bill in any sense pioneers, it is pointing in the direction in which other legislation should go.
We shall wish to scrutinise Part III and the other parts with our usual care, but I hope very much that in due course Part III at least—I shall not commit myself on the other parts—will receive your Lordships blessing.
5.36 p.m.
Lord Finsberg: My Lords, I address my remarks almost completely to Clause 139 which deals with the Commission for the New Towns, and I declare my interest as its deputy chairman.
In what I am saying I do not ask in any way for the life of the commission to be extended beyond its planned dissolution in March 1998. Taking together Clauses 137 to 140, I believe that an opportunity presents itself both to save money and to increase public receipts from property sales.
I urge my noble friend to consider using the powers which are to be given in those clauses in the best interest of the taxpayer and in the best interest of the residents and businesses in the areas where government land and vacant buildings exist.
First, as regards the taxpayer, there are many thousands of acres and millions of square feet of such government-owned property, not just in the Commission for the New Towns, in the urban development corporations, and HATs, but also in other parts of government; for example, the MoD, NHS and the Post Office. At the moment, each part of government must retain its own in-house staff or external agents to handle its disposal activities, thereby duplicating, triplicating and even quadruplicating much of what each does, and in some cases preventing the left hand of the Government from knowing what the right hand of the Government is doing. The sensible disposal of that property can bring several billion pounds to the Exchequer if handled prudently. We must avoid an unseemly and costly competition between different parts of government which will considerably depress the price achieved.
Let us consider the Peterborough area. The Commission for the New Towns owns there some 900 acres of government land available for residential, or commercial purposes, together with some 1 million square feet of commercial buildings. It is busy selling all this property at the rate the market will take and passing the proceeds to the Exchequer. Competition to sell property there is already fierce, and has become even fiercer as a result of the recent launch of the Hanson Group's 2,000 acre Peterborough southern township site in the old brickpits. So it is already difficult to achieve the best deal for the taxpayer. Yet a few miles south down the A.1 is the massive 1,000 acre Alconbury air base recently vacated by our US allies; and it is believed the MoD is about to offer this to the market either as a whole or in a few blocks. That could severely disrupt the property market in the area and make it even more difficult to get a good deal for the taxpayer. No private owner would flood the market in that way. A slim new organisation co-ordinating disposal of government land and buildings would make a lot of sense in such circumstances and produce better net current value for the Exchequer.
Secondly, I turn to the residents and businesses in the areas where surplus government land and buildings exist. It is important that their interests should be carefully planned, and that they get good quality development. That is more likely to come from a single, widely experienced team with appropriate experts than

1015
from a multiplicity of teams less likely to have appropriate expertise. It is important not only for local residents and businesses, but also for the UK as a whole that maximum effort should be devoted to encouraging inward investment—from, for example, North America, continental Europe and the Far East—in the course of such development because it creates new jobs, it raises the GNP, it swells tax revenue, and so on. If disposal of government surplus land and buildings is mainly in the hands of a single body, that body is likely to be much more effective in working alongside the Invest in Britain Bureau to achieve inward investment than a multiplicity of agencies, one per department.
As we found out in the Commission for the New Towns, to maintain a good flow of inward investment from the USA, Germany, Japan, Taiwan, and so on, you need the kind of rapid response which that single combination of two national agencies could provide. Surely it is unwise to jeopardise this competitive advantage that is available to the UK by spreading the Government's ownership of the raw material of inward investment—surplus land and buildings—over a plethora of different departments and agencies.
I urge that the order-making powers in the clauses to which I referred should be used to create a new organisation with wide-ranging responsibilities for the disposal of surplus government land and buildings—not necessarily universal responsibility, but responsibility in most cases—and certainly on the basis that the net proceeds would go to the originating department. The one purpose would be to achieve good results for the taxpayer and to stimulate the economy in the areas in question. There need not be significant conflict between those two activities, as I found out from my own association with the CNT which has been vigorously carrying out both functions for some years.
Let us just imagine what would happen if each agency had its own staff for disposal. Because each would be small, they would not be able to get the best people available; the infrastructure would be bureaucratic; and we would have the situation in area after area where competition in the public sector would bring down the ultimate value to the taxpayer. I know that my noble friend will say—and I have been in correspondence, as has the commission, for some time with the Government—that the Government do not want to create a centralised department because they feel that it would be much better for each department, "to do its own thing". With my experience of the Commission for the New Towns where we have on our property committee the leading property experts in Britain, I can only say that the latter totally disagree with the Government's point of view.
I suggest to my noble friend that it is not too late for the Government to think again. I am sure that my noble friend knows from my background that I hate bureaucracy and centralisation; indeed, such things are an anathema to my philosophy. What I suggest would do neither of those things; indeed, it would find a way of getting more proceeds for the Treasury. I find it impossible to understand why the Treasury does not back this 100 per cent. I know why some government departments may not do so, and we all know the
1016
"Sir Humphreys" who will get together in their clubs and say, "No, we can't do this; we will be giving up control of our property". Of course they will. But, anticipating that, I said that the proceeds should go back to the originating department. It means that they would have no work to do—which would make them happy—the taxpayer would get a bonus, and we would be able to plan the distribution of surplus property in a much better fashion.
Although I am not here as often as I would like to be because of my Council of Europe and WEU duties, I may be tempted—although, in the light of what I may hear from my noble friend the Minister, I may not need to do so—to consider tabling an amendment in Committee just to try to flesh out the ideas that I have tried to put forward. I would not do so in a destructive manner; indeed, I want to be constructive. I first came into contact with the new towns when I became Minister responsible for new towns back in 1979. I found them fascinating places. I also found that the disposals, which, in the first instance, went to the sitting tenants if they wanted them, helped to build up the community spirit in those new towns.
Some 15 or 16 years later I was fortunate enough to be appointed as deputy chairman of the commission. I found that the development of the new towns was a model. They are talked about throughout the civilised world as the best examples of planning, but planning in a sense that is not bureaucratic and which fits into the area for which such towns were designed. I have in mind the planning for Telford and, indeed, for Milton Keynes which owes so much to the late Jock Campbell—and I should like to pay a warm tribute to him. The planning of both of them was different, and yet they had a thread running through them; namely, the creation of a place where people could live, work and be entertained.
Before I sit down I must say how pleased I am that Milton Keynes is to receive some £19 million from the National Lottery to build a theatre which will complete what I call the entertainment and cultural life of that city. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will really consider my suggestions and not accept the advice that has come from the Treasury. I have reason to believe that the Department of the Environment is not totally unsympathetic to my proposals; but, of course, as those of us who have been Ministers know, big brother Treasury has a rather bigger say in such matters than any individual department. However, my noble friend the Minister is a much bigger man and I hope that he will exert his influence to get something done along those lines.
5.47 p.m.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, in speaking this afternoon I shall confine my remarks to Part II Of the Bill. I do so because I have spent most of my career in construction with consulting engineers, civil engineering contractors and of course latterly with Eurotunnel. I have seen at first hand the damage to progress, overall costs and relationships between the parties that such disputes cause.

1017
The Latham Report has produced an excellent blueprint for changing the atmosphere as regards speed and the comfort that the parties will achieve when disputes arise. I believe that it has been accepted by most, if not all, of the industry's representatives. The important thing is that the principle of being paid at specific and fixed times is vital to the owner, to main contractors, to sub-contractors and to suppliers, whether they be very large or very small. It does not really matter if a contractor is paid annually or monthly, as long as he knows what will happen when he prices the job; for example, if he is to be paid annually, he can make financial arrangements. What really hurts is when the contractor thinks that he will be paid monthly and he then gets paid annually, or, worse still, if the other party who is supposed to be paying him goes into liquidation.
I welcome the principles contained in Part II of the Bill, but there are many concerns which obviously will have to be dealt with in Committee. I should like to discuss just a few of them today. One of the most worrying comments I have heard is one that was made yesterday by a leading lawyer in the construction industry. He said that there was nothing wrong with the Bill—he can obviously see the pound notes flying. I worry about that because an old saying that we used to have when I was dealing with such matters was that when the cost of the lawyers exceeded the cost that you were claiming, you would probably reach agreement with the other side. This Bill is designed to stop that. It used to be called claims engineering. It is more law than engineering. I suppose it is business, but I am sure that it accounts for what the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, said earlier when he mentioned that the costs were probably up by 30 per cent. on what they should be.
I turn now to Clause 102 and what is included and what is not. The noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, said that this area was a shambles and I entirely agree with him. I must compliment the Government on including Crown contracts in this provision. They are setting an example and that is good news. But why is the installation of burglar alarms excluded? As regards the extraction of minerals, when one is building a motorway, one needs material to make embankments. Sometimes one makes a cutting and sometimes one digs the material out of an adjacent borrow pit, as we call it. It looks as if one of those provisions is included and the other is excluded. There is no logic to that at all. If one is making precast beams for a bridge, if one casts them on the site they are included in the provisions but if one casts them off the site they are not. It is much more efficient and cheaper to cast them off site and that results in a much better quality. Of course there is a catch-all at the end of subsection (4) of the clause which I suppose means that the Government can change what they like later. We need proper definitions which cannot be changed later as a result of lobbying on the part of particular suppliers.
I now turn to definitions generally. Clause 105 is a case in point. Several words in this clause need defining. I note in Clauses 62 and 75 in Part I of the Bill that there are about three pages of definitions but poor old Part II does not contain any definitions at all. What is
1018
adjudication? As the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, said, that needs to be defined. What is resolution? Is it final, interim or what? What is a dispute? There are written disputes and verbal disputes. We need to know what constitutes a dispute. Is adjudication linked to arbitration? I certainly hope that it is not.
Does the Bill provide for interim payments to keep a contract moving? I think that it does, but are these interim payments final and binding on the parties or can they be subject to later arbitration? In the case of a large contract, one cannot expect to have matters that are final and binding decided in 28 days.
As regards Clause 106, is it meant to refer to stage payments or interim payments? Stage payments mean that one is paid when one has, for example, completed the floor of a block of flats. In the case of interim payments, these are time related. Or does the Bill mean to refer to payments on account? There is a little tidying up to be done there. What does,
"a final date for payment",
mean in Clause 107? This clause has been mentioned earlier in our debate. It states:
"Every construction contract shall—provide an adequate mechanism for determining what payments become due under the contract".
I envisage the lawyers getting excited over that provision, too.
What constitutes an award under Clause 108(4)? I believe that that should be the decision of an adjudicator. We must discuss later how that is to be enforced. Is it final and binding?
My next point has already been mentioned. I, too, am worried about the lack of a scheme of construction contracts which must provide the detail of how these measures are intended to operate. I do not see how this House can discuss this measure in detail without at least seeing the first draft of the document. I hope that the Minister can indicate that we shall see it before we reach the next stages of the Bill.
In conclusion, I warmly welcome this Bill and I believe that the industry does too. As I have said, some major and many minor changes will have to be discussed during later stages of the Bill. However, subject to that proviso, I believe that the Bill will be a great help in raising the professionalism, the image and the effectiveness of the British construction industry and that it will help to reduce costs.
5.54 p.m.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, I intend to speak briefly in this debate from a Scottish perspective and with a particular focus on Part II and its relationship to Scots law. But, first, I wish to make some general observations. I am interested that Part I of the Bill, dealing with housing grants, does not apply to Scotland. I look forward to hearing whether any alternative provisions will be made for Scotland in this respect.
With regard to Part III, I have no problem with the toughening up of the registration for architects. On the basis that architects design enclosed space for what is usually human activity, there is no case for anything but

1019
the highest standards of competence. A civilisation is judged, in part, by the quality of its buildings. Today's new buildings are the heritage structures of the future. Both the owners and the public as users must be confident that the new building will perform well in respect of its function, design, services and longevity. Clearly, architects have a substantial responsibility.
In Part IV it is suggested that the Secretary of State for Scotland will be given wider powers to assist with the regeneration of Scottish housing, towns and villages. I wonder whether I am correct in believing that this provision does not have any money attached to it. If there were money attached to it, it would be welcome as regeneration continues to be important in Scotland.
I now come to Part II of the Bill. As someone who recently worked in the building industry as a break from my normal career in social work, who worked within a slating and plastering firm and was in possession of a 714 labour only sub-contractor certificate and who is the proud possessor of a Scotvec Certificate in Building—please do not be too impressed!—I certainly recognise the circumstances in which the proposals in Part II would be relevant.
The whole atmosphere of the building industry can seem to be riddled with distrust. It is only necessary to read a bill of quantity, with its strange language, to realise that distrust runs deep. These bills of quantity have a demeaning effect on the craftsmen who will carry out the work. While I acknowledge that the architect and the quantity surveyor must transmit the specification, and have an essential right to do so, this is not always well received at craft level. It feels as if there is nothing left for the craftsmen to sort out.
I must oppose the extension of Part II of the Bill to Scotland. This is not because of any better relationships within the construction industry but because of the implications Part II has in Scots law. Broadly, Scots law is derived, as I am certain your Lordships will know, from principle rather than from precedent. I am encouraged to explain that there is an objection to "stand alone" legislation being established in Scotland for any particular industry. I acknowledge that the construction industry has its mid-contract problems, but it is not the only industry with complex problems. There is no justification for a special regime of law relating to the construction industry. No matter how uncertain or unsatisfactory the law may be, the construction industry is not the only one affected by legal complexities. The building industry is not so different from other activities in the economy as to require specific legislation such as that proposed in Part II. This is a view shared by the Law Society of Scotland and the Scottish Law Commission. That was alluded to by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel.
To be more specific, the adjudication process which is described in Clause 105 is premature in the Scottish context. There has been an extensive review of civil law by Lord Cullen. I suggest that the changes which are recommended in the report of Lord Cullen, should be allowed an opportunity to develop before an alternative system is introduced.
1020
In Clauses 106 to 110 the problems relating to the payment of debts are not exclusive to the construction industry, and that makes a stand alone reform inappropriate. This is a matter of general interest to all creditors and debtors.
Under Clause 111, which deals with the scheme for construction contracts, there is a risk that any model terms and conditions issued by the Lord Advocate or the Secretary of State for Scotland will come to be considered as the norm by the industry. The prescription of contractual provisions does not sit well in a free market. Parties should be able to meet their own requirements by devising their own terms and conditions, tailored to the always unique project they are undertaking. Trying to approach such a disparate activity as building without complete flexibility seems to me to be unwise. Altering a model contract would probably be more difficult than starting from scratch.
I look forward to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, about the future of the Bill in Scotland.
6 p.m.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, I hope that the House will forgive me if I do not take issue with the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, although I am very tempted to take issue with the noble Lord, Lord Finsberg. I do not believe that the House would appreciate a national property sales agency given the experience with the Property Services Agency, which ran the government estate and had to be dealt with by this Government because of various problems.
One of the advantages of being tail-end Charlie in this type of debate is that one has the opportunity to respond to remarks made by previous speakers. I am glad that I do not need to do that to any great extent because there appears to be a fairly wide consensus about the problems that the Bill presents and the amendments that we shall have to consider in Committee and at the later stages. However, I thought that I might take the opportunity to mention one or two minor aspects. I hope that that will be useful, but I shall not speak at length.
One of the advantages of the part of the Bill which deals with the registration of architects is that it gives us the opportunity to write into the Bill the need for the Architects Registration Council to be aware of the needs of disabled people, although I am sure that in most cases architects take those needs into account. For example, one might require the Architects Registration Council to develop a code of practice and perhaps to ensure that members of the council are aware of and have some expertise in meeting the needs of disabled people.
We also need to be aware that disability is not necessarily a permanent condition. In certain circumstances people who have severe difficulties are relieved of those disabilities. One ċan think of the miracles of hip replacement operations. I know of at least a couple of cases of individuals who were seriously disabled and could hardly get about; yet after hip replacement operations, although they are not running around like spring chickens, the change in their disability is very marked.

1021
Surely it would be wrong to penalise financially such people through the means-testing element in the Bill. They may be poor people. Why should we lay a financial penalty on them if their disability is relieved? My reading of the Bill suggests that they would have to repay any grant that they had received. That is an issue that we need to examine closely.
The other matter that we need to consider closely is what I would describe as the anti-Tebbit clause. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, will not take it amiss that I use his name in this connection. However, it is not right that because they move house in order to get work relatively poor people should be penalised financially by having to repay a grant they have received. People are not penalised if they move house in order to look after a disabled or elderly and infirm relative, but if they find work in another town within a three-year period they must repay the grant. That is not a good thing.
Many speakers have mentioned that there will be a need to go through the Bill very carefully during the Committee and later stages. I am hopeful that, in view of the support that exists on all sides of the House, we shall make significant amendments which will make this a better Bill.
6.5 p.m.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, the difficulty in dealing with this Bill is that it is really three or four Bills in one. It is particularly regrettable that Part II, dealing with the construction industry, does not form a separate Bill. It is a matter of vital importance. In introducing this Second Reading debate the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, graphically described the contractual complexities in the building industry, the large part it plays in the economy and the need to get this right.
There was general praise for the Latham Report, and the Bill is an attempt to introduce its main provisions. The trouble is that it does not deal with the whole of the report, which Sir Michael emphasised should be how his report was handled. Furthermore, various aspects of the Bill have raised questions. Clauses 102 and 105 have been referred to specifically, as has the fact that there is no scheme for us to consider.
Therefore, in relation to Part II of the Bill—and as I said, it is a pity that it does not form a Bill on its own—there is general support for its intent, but a number of amendments appear to be required and will no doubt be moved at subsequent stages to try to improve it.
With regard to Part III of the Bill, my noble friend Lord Rodgers made it clear that in his opinion the solution proposed here is satisfactory. That view appears to be shared by others who spoke on the subject from the point of view of architects.
Part I of the Bill causes me most concern. Here I should declare an interest, because for many years I have been President of the National Home Improvement Council and I have followed the whole question of the improvement of Britain's housing stock with great care. Unfortunately, I have come to the conclusion that the
1022
underlying purpose of Part I of the Bill is to save money. That does not emerge clearly from the Bill itself, but it is stated on page iv of the memorandum indicating the financial effects of the Bill. That refers to the:
"resources released as a result of the change from mandatory to discretionary renovation grants".
Therefore, the underlying purpose of the changes is to reduce the funding in this vital area.
If there is one area in our economy where we should not do that it is this one. As the noble Lord, Lord Williams, and my noble friend Lady Hamwee pointed out, according to the last housing condition survey there are 1.5 million houses which are recognised as being unfit for human habitation in the housing stock in England and at least another million require major improvement and repair. Most of those homes are inhabited by people on low incomes. Many of them are elderly. Many are single occupants. They suffer great hardship. The social implications are very considerable. Age Concern has estimated that the diseases resulting from living in cold and damp homes cost the NHS £800 million a year.
Statistics indicate that the mortality rate in Britain in winter compared with summer is higher than any other West European country. The situation arises from the poor quality of housing lived in by people who do not have the resources to put it right.
What is being done by the Government involves a successive series of make do and mend policies. What is required—it is not apparent in the Bill—is a statement of strategy for dealing with the problem. Is it simply our intention to pass this off to future generations? With the way in which we are dealing with the issue now, it can only get worse.
I would have accepted a change from the mandatory to the discretionary form of grant if it had been set alongside a clearly defined strategy developed over a period of years with identified resources attached thereto. We would have known where we were going. There is indeed an argument for giving more discretion to local authorities. But to use the change from mandatory to discretionary grants merely to reduce the amounts of money used for this vital purpose strikes me as entirely wrong.
My noble friend Lady Hamwee said that I would wish to say something on Clause 136, which relates to the home energy efficiency scheme. On the face of it, what is proposed in Clause 136 is thoroughly reasonable. The clause proposes that the scheme should be widened to apply to other forms of energy saving quite apart from the basic elements of insulation hitherto covered. The trouble is that here again there is a major reduction of resources. I have an interest to declare in this case also. I am the patron of NEA, the charitable organisation which operates the scheme. About a year ago the Government gave a commitment that £100 million would be made available on a three-year basis to ensure that the homes of people, mainly elderly, on low incomes could be improved by a modicum of insulation. Within less than a year that sum was cut by a third. Having geared up the operation to improve the living conditions of those people, the Government cut the

1023
scheme. They now suggest that that reduced sum of money should be used for a wider range of purposes. It does not make much sense.
While we welcome Parts II and III of the Bill, subject to some amendment, I hope that we shall indicate by amendments to Part I and Clause 136 that we have serious reservations in those regards.
6.14 p.m.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I would judge the Bill in relation to two criteria: first, what will be the effect of the Bill in improving the housing stock of this country; and, secondly, to what extent does the Bill help to improve the working of the construction industry? As regards the first question, I think that the Bill fails. It will not improve significantly the housing stock of this country. Indeed it might well contribute to making it worse. With regard to the construction industry, the Bill helps, but there are detailed flaws.
Let me deal first with the question of grants. It seems to me that one part of the Bill makes an admission that the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 has failed. I do not say that it has failed, but the Government seem to think that it has failed and are therefore replacing that Act rather quickly. However, my anxiety is that the removal of the mandatory grants is being used more as a mechanism to reduce funding than to add sensible flexibility to the way in which we deal with houses which are below standard.
We have heard many statistics this afternoon. Let me give one more: 21 per cent. of our private housing stock is below standard. Yet public expenditure to improve by grants the condition of that stock is less than a third of the 1983 level in real terms. There are many other figures regarding the poor quality of housing occupied by elderly people and the problems faced by those who are disabled. It adds up to a depressing picture.
There is a danger that in dealing with some of these matters the Government have added to the possible delays—for example, by making it possible for grants for the disabled to be delayed for up to 12 months instead of up to six months. That will have a knock-on effect on small builders who will have to wait that much longer for their payments. I am not happy about the delays. However, the main principle that less money will be made available bothers me most.
I turn to the single regeneration budget and the moving of that on to a statutory basis. It is not a bad idea. However, I am concerned that there will be a continued lack of transparency in the allocation process. In moving to a statutory basis, I hope that some of the criticisms of the SRB expressed in this House and elsewhere will be dealt with by the Government. I believe that the process should be more open. Bidders should have a better sense of what they are about; and the arbitrary nature of the competition should be lessened as many small organisations which make bids for the SRB are being penalised by the current process. I hope that it will be improved.
The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, referred to the home energy efficiency scheme. I welcome the fact that it will be widened in scope, but regret very much that the
1024
amount of money available will be reduced significantly, thereby negating the benefits of widening the scheme.
I turn briefly to Clause 102 which I considered at great length. I find it complicated and the reasons for it are somewhat obscure. I simply cannot believe that that is the only definition at which we can arrive. It is a definition which excludes half the construction industry. The Government say, "We'll change it if it does not work". Surely we can arrive at a definition which does not exclude such a large part of the industry and which is more meaningful and precise. I shall not give my suggestions now. The Committee stage will give ample opportunity. It would be better still if the Government came back with an improved definition. I have talked to people in the building industry who say, "It must be a mistake. The Government could not have intended Clause 102 as it stands, a clause which excludes so much of the industry which the Bill is intended to help". Yet here we have a clause which is so complicated, with so many exclusions, that it will negate many of the good purposes of Part II of the Bill. Therefore I ask the Government to consider the matter again. I am sure that they can do better.
I turn, finally, to the part of the Bill to which the noble Lord, Lord Finsberg, and my noble friend Lord Monkswell referred—the miscellaneous and general provisions. I note with interest what the noble Lord, Lord Finsberg, said. I wish to think about it. He clearly puts forward a proposal to make the sales of disposal of land, in particular Ministry of Defence land, more cost effective. I do not think that one could dissent from that aim. However, I have another concern: the growth of the quango culture which is implicit in this part of the Bill. I regret very much that the Bill seems to suggest that the Government will set up other residuary bodies to replace UDCs, commissions for new towns, housing action trusts and so on. The experience of London and Londoners and the difficulties we have had with the London Residuary Body since the decline of the GLC would suggest that the Government ought not to go down that path any further. All the Bill does is to say that local authorities will have no part to play and that on a permanent basis there will be other structures which will be unaccountable, bureaucratic and lacking in transparency of operations.
I ask the Government to think again. I do not see why some of the bodies cannot be restored to local authorities. Some years ago, when the Government carried out their action, there was an indication that local authorities would be considered to take over the bodies. Now the Government are saying no to that. I hope that they will take the problems on board and go some way towards meeting our anxieties.
6.20 p.m.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I have listened with interest to the Second Reading debate and with a great deal of pleasure. I even find myself recalling the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Williams, with pleasure. It is clear that most noble Lords share our aims of a more efficient and

1025
competitive construction industry and ensuring that help to home owners is spent effectively and goes to those who need it most.
We seem to have a few differences of principle, but many more differences of detail. Given the experience and enthusiasm evident from today's debate and the open minds which we have in government, we have an excellent foundation for a fruitful Committee stage in the best traditions of the House. A number of detailed points have been made today and I shall not have the opportunity to reply to them all. However, if it would be helpful, I shall write in response to points made so that we can get our retaliation in first—as the noble Lord, Lord Williams, would have it—before the Committee stage.
I wish to address the main points raised and in doing so follow my noble friend's order rather than that in the Bill. First, perhaps I may give the noble Lord, Lord Williams, some comfort that the lost clause (almost something by Sir Arthur Sullivan) will not reappear in the Bill. It may emerge in a Bill of its own at a later stage, but it will not be added to this one.
On the construction industry, the noble Lord, Lord Williams, and everyone else supported the thrust of the legislation. I found his comments extremely helpful, he gave us a large helping of the good parts of the egg, although he ground a considerable amount of pepper on to them, perhaps in an attempt to make us sneeze. The legislation is merely a small part of a major change which we hope is taking place in the construction industry. The proposals in the Bill come as a result of a long process of consultation and consensus. We shall listen with an open mind to what noble Lords have to say about it, but everyone should be aware that if we make the wrong changes we shall put at risk the consensus which has been achieved and the basis which is necessary for our proposals to succeed at all.
Everyone who covered the construction industry mentioned Clause 102 and expressed doubts of greater or less severity. We shall consider what has been said today and will have a further opportunity to do so in Committee. Perhaps it would be helpful, however, if I explained how the clause reached its present state. The construction industry is very diverse, from plumbers to decorators, from scaffolders to architects. We have sought to ring-fence the wide variety of traditional construction and civil engineering activities. The provisions are specifically designed to address the contractual arrangements for such activities. For the sake of clarity, we have specifically excluded a number of operations on the margins.
In drawing up that definition, we have drawn heavily on a known definition of construction operations: that contained in the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988. It is important to appreciate that there will always be grey areas. Some fine tuning may well be called for, not least because construction operations themselves may evolve over time. That is why it is important that the Secretary of State should have the power to amend the definition by order.
1026
The noble Lord, Lord Williams, and others remarked on the exclusion of process plant engineering. The engineering work involved in assembling plant to carry out a process is subject to very different contractual arrangements from traditional construction work. There is a strong feeling in the process plant engineering sector that such operations should be excluded from any legislation on the grounds that existing contractual relationships in the sector operate satisfactorily and without conflict.
Various other general points were picked up which I shall cover now. The noble Lord, Lord Williams, mentioned trust funds and pointed out that we have not chosen to implement the Latham proposal to introduce them. We made clear to the industry that we would consider any proposals along those lines that had the full backing of the industry. No such proposals have been put forward. Any trust fund arrangement which did not have the full backing and confidence of the industry would be unlikely to be successful. As my noble friend Lord Ullswater pointed out, there are considerable fears about the risk of double payment. That is one good reason why no consensus has emerged.
As regards latent defects, the noble Lord, Lord Williams, recognised that some of the Latham recommendations, including those about liability for latent defects, had been referred to the Law Commission. The commission has recently reported on them and concludes that no action is required. There is now a consultation exercise and if the construction industry feels that there should be change in the law of liability, it has the opportunity to say so. We will, of course, take notice of what is said.
My noble friend Lord Ullswater and the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, asked that the scheme for construction contracts should be made available for the Committee stage. I shall certainly arrange for a detailed description of our current proposals to be available through the Printed Paper Office before the Committee stage. However, we have no intention of introducing the scheme without consultation and discussion. Its final shape must depend to some extent on the primary legislation.
The noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, asked about the application of the Bill in Scotland. It would not make sense to give English and Welsh construction contracts the benefit of speedy payment procedures and informal dispute resolution procedures but, not Scotland. I recognise that there are significant differences between English and Scottish law in relation to contracts. I can give the noble Lord an assurance that they are well understood, but it is the Government's judgment that the legislation should apply throughout Britain.
The noble Lords, Lord Howie of Troon and Lord Rodgers of Quarry Bank, were quite eloquent on the subject of adjudication. Our provisions tackle conflict in the industry from two different angles. First, they will provide access by all parties to construction contracts to an alternative dispute resolution mechanism. Let me emphasise this. We are providing a right to have disputes referred to a quick, informal and impartial

1027
mechanism to deal with them on site. Secondly, the provisions are to deal with one of the root causes of disputes: payment and payment abuses. I firmly believe that our proposals to give a statutory right to adjudication are the right way forward in the circumstances of the industry. Sir Michael Latham was enthusiastic about the merits of alternative dispute resolution and about adjudication in particular. The industry understands adjudication and values it and that is what we are giving the industry.
The noble Lord, Lord Howie, made many detailed points and perhaps I may select two for reply. First, we are not confusing adjudication and arbitration, but there are a number of safeguards and technical points in the Arbitration Bill of which we might like to make use in the scheme. So a reference is appropriate in the Bill. As to the timescale for adjudication, we will listen to industry's views, but we are determined to set a challenging target and also to avoid delays in appointing adjudicators.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I am sorry to interrupt him. He is doing extremely well. There is a distinction between adjudication and arbitration which at the moment is confused in the clause; namely, arbitration is final and non-appealable, whereas adjudication is interim, temporary and appealable.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, to go into an answer on that point would be to detain the House longer than it deserves. I promise to write to the noble Lord to set out our views. If we come to discuss this matter again in Committee, we shall therefore do so each understanding the other.
The noble Lord, Lord Howie, also asked why in Scotland the scheme will be made by the Lord Advocate. It has been decided that the Lord Advocate is best placed to make the scheme in Scotland because of his ministerial responsibility for arbitration procedures in Scotland.
The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, said that lawyers will have a field-day in relation to what constitutes an "adequate mechanism" for payment in Clause 107. The industry covers thousands of different operations and dozens of different types of contract. Payment is already determined in far too many ways for us to come up with a single definition. This legislation requires that payment should be defined in terms of amount and date. That will be a big improvement on what happens at the moment.
Many noble Lords praised the work of Sir Michael Latham. We join in that praise. There has been a great deal of consultation between government, all sides of industry and Sir Michael which has resulted in the broad consensus reflected in this legislation.
I now turn to architects' registration. Perhaps I should declare a very remote interest. A forebear of mine was the first president of the RIBA. His qualification for that position, so far as I can discover, was tearing down an old and beautiful house and putting an unlivable in
1028
monstrosity in its place. I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Rodgers, has better qualifications for his interest in the industry.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams, made reference to the Government's change of heart in this matter. Indeed, we confess it. We were persuaded by the almost universal objections from architects and by a certain amount of public concern. My noble friend Lady Denton announced the government decision not to proceed with abolition but instead to examine measures to simplify the present arrangements. I am grateful for the praise from the Liberal Benches for that decision.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams, asked about the statutory protection that the term "architects" has and whether it is our strategy that that should continue. (I am sorry if I misunderstood the noble Lord.) A significant proportion of architects are not members of the Royal Institute of British Architects. We accepted the recommendation of the RIBA and of the architects themselves that there should be a separate registration and professional representative body.
I now return to Part I of the Bill and the abolition of mandatory grants. My noble friend Lord Ferrers has already explained that the pressure for mandatory grants has distorted the operation of the current regime. In other respects, however, the regime has provided a clear basis on which local authorities can carry out their responsibilities for private housing. As my noble friend said, responsibility for keeping a property in good order clearly rests with the owner. The primary aim of the grant system remains to help low-income home owners whose homes are unfit and who cannot afford to undertake repairs.
Resources will always be finite. Our proposals will enable local authorities to make decisions at the local level as to where resources can be used best. I am grateful for the welcome given to that by my noble friend Lord Ullswater. I did not sense the same welcome on the Benches opposite. There was perhaps some feeling that resources were not adequate. I did not hear the noble Lord, Lord Williams, say that resources should be increased. But then he and his noble friend Lord Dubs have had a spell cast on them by the Gordon Brownies and can only croak when it comes to such subjects.
Lord Williams of Elvel: There was no croaking in the spell.
Lord Lucas: You croak after the spell.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I think the Minister has his fairy tales mixed up.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, there was also some questioning, and I was very surprised by it, of our decision to give greater discretion to local authorities. The noble Lord, Lord Williams, said that that would result in different local authorities doing different things. Indeed, so it would. However, does the noble Lord not think that local authorities should be allowed that kind of discretion? Is it not something for which he

1029
has argued strongly in other contexts? I am very surprised at the seeming opposition in principle to extending the scope of the powers of local authorities.
Lord Williams of Elvel: The Minister should read my speech.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I shall.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, sought assurance that our proposals , will not lead to reduced resources. Of course resources have to be determined annually in the Budget. There are many calls for resources which cannot all be met. However, there will be no reduction in the provision of over £250 million between 1995–96 and 1996–97 despite the tough constraints on public expenditure.
My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment today announced proposals for financing private sector renewal. Resources will continue to be allocated specifically for private sector renewal purposes. That will ensure that those resources are used for that purpose rather than diverted elsewhere. There will also be a separate allocation for disabled facilities grants.
The noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, asked why Part I of the Bill does not apply in Scotland. Scottish law on housing fitness is different from that in England and Wales. I understand that the Scottish Office has conducted its own review.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, shares our concern that the elderly and infirm should continue to live in their own homes. For that reason we propose that they should be eligible to receive help with repair, improvement and adaptation of their home through home repair assistance.
The noble Baroness is also concerned about our proposals for the delayed payment of disabled facilities grant, as was the noble Lord, Lord Dubs. Authorities should use this measure only sparingly and in exceptional cases and not where urgent adaptations are required. We will make that clear in the guidance on the new grant regime. We have no reason to believe that that should cause undue hardship, as authorities have six months to respond to an application anyway and most works are likely to take as many months to be completed. The authority must also inform applicants of the earliest date of payment where a grant is approved. The proposal would give authorities an additional administrative tool to enable them to schedule payments more efficiently, including between financial years where necessary, and to exert some control over mandatory grant expenditure.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, was also concerned about the definition of "disabled" in the Bill. We will look at that in the light of her comments and will doubtless return to it in Committee.
Concern was also expressed by the noble Baroness and by the noble Lord, Lord Williams, that the prior qualifying period would prevent the first-time buyer entering the market. In general, we believe that where people are looking to enter into home ownership, it
1030
should be at a price they can afford. Where a property is in poor condition, the market price should reflect that rather than the property carrying with it a "dowry" of grant assistance.
Noble Lords raised a number of other points on the tools, other than renovation grants, that local authorities are to be offered under this legislation. The noble Lord, Lord Williams, and others welcomed relocation grants. The noble Lord also questioned whether the single regeneration budget (SRB) was legal. I can comfort the noble Lord. Yes, it is. But it draws on a range of powers, widely scattered throughout legislation. We believe it sensible to draw them all together in one Bill in one place. I was grateful, however, for the praise that the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, implicitly lavished on the single regeneration budget. He asked for its improvement. We can always hope for that. However, I remember that not so long ago the whole concept of it was rubbished by the Opposition. I am grateful for their change of view.
The noble Lord, Lord Williams, asked whether new resources would be provided for relocation grants. The cost of relocation grants will need to be met from within the overall private sector renewal resources. Our aim is to provide a further tool for local authorities to use as they see fit. The change from mandatory to discretionary renovation grants will give authorities more scope to deploy resources according to their own priorities. If they give relocation grants, subsidy will be payable by central government in the same way as for other slum clearance activities. It is currently 60 per cent. We have no proposals to change that.
The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, asked about the home energy efficiency scheme. He wondered why we proposed to widen the scheme to include lighting when the resources available had been reduced. We feel it is desirable to make the scheme as flexible as possible to give the best possible benefit to people in the greatest need of help. The amendment will allow the scheme to include all realistic energy-saving measures, including energy-efficient lighting, which is especially cost effective. It is a structural change not linked to the money allocation in any one year. There is no commitment to change any feature of the scheme. The amendment only effects our power to do so.
The noble Lords, Lord Williams and Lord Dubs, asked for assurances that once UDCs are wound up the property would pass to local authorities. The UDCs intend to dispose of assets prior to wind-up. Each UDC will formulate its own plans in the light of its own circumstances as to where assets go. Some property may pass to local authorities, but that is not the only possible route. Clauses provide for one or more residuary bodies to receive the remaining assets. We should remember who has paid for the assets: the Exchequer. We must be careful in making any assumptions that local authorities , should be the beneficiaries of UDC assets.
My noble friend Lord Finsberg devoted his speech to an extensive proposal for a new role for the Commission for the New Towns. I am delighted to pay tribute to the work of the commission. It has done an excellent job in disposing of new town property with major receipts to the

1031
Exchequer. The Government understand that it should not put on the market more property than the market can absorb. As my noble friend knows, the commission has instructions not to flood the market. It must seek a good price.
My noble friend's proposal for a single government property agency goes beyond the clauses in the Bill. Nevertheless, we take his point about the need for co-ordination in the disposal of government assets. If that is not the case, I shall inquire further. I shall take away his proposal for a single property disposals agency and we shall consider it further before the next stage of the Bill.
A large number of detailed points have been raised on what is, in a sense, a technical Bill. I am sure that we shall return to them in Committee. For their part, the Government will bring forward a few minor technical amendments to keep the noble Lord, Lord Williams, happy. He will appreciate that, as he said himself, the Bill is one half of Siamese twins. There may be some minor plastic surgery required on the join. We undertake to give good notice of any such amendments.
Overall, we believe that the proposals before the House today will secure a system which provides flexibility so that local authorities are able to target help on people and areas most in need of the available resources, as was intended when the present system of grants under the 1989 Act was introduced. I commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Community Care (Direct Payments) Bill [H.L.]
6.43 p.m.
Bill read a third time.
Clause 1 [Direct payments]:
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 11, at beginning insert ("subject to subsection (7)").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 which are grouped with it. These amendments are about eligibility. I believe that we all support the Bill. We all believe that the disabled person should be at the centre of the care system and not dependent on it, each and every day able to exercise the kind of choices that each of us as an individual takes for granted. However, I simply do not understand why that right to choose direct payment and to exercise choice should be confined, as the Government intend, to only a small proportion of disabled people; namely, those with physical disabilities under the age of 65.
It is an issue about rights, choices and local judgment. We on these Benches believe that all disabled people who want and are able to benefit from direct payment—cash rather than services in kind—whatever their ability and whatever their age, should be eligible for it. The amendment would cost the Government absolutely
1032
nothing. It would do what disabled people and disability organisations led by DIG and the British council for disabled people as well as local authorities all want.
So why have the Government resisted the proposal? It cannot be on grounds of cost because the amendment is probably cost neutral and would probably save money for the local authorities. It is not about cost. It cannot be because there is no demand for it. Existing third party schemes already include people with learning disabilities, some of those over 65 whom the Government would exclude. It cannot be that local authorities would be overwhelmed because only a small proportion of disabled people, probably younger ones, are likely in any case to prefer direct payments. Indeed, we shall probably need campaigns to encourage people to take up direct payments rather than use efforts to limit them. It cannot be because it is too onerous for local authorities. The entire scheme is in any case discretionary. Local authorities will not start the scheme unless they feel that there is local demand and are confident about their own competence to do so.
If local authorities are competent to have the local decision in their judgment and if local authorities are to be entrusted with the discretion as to whether they should set up the scheme, why do we refuse them the lesser discretion as to who should be eligible within it? It cannot be that all local authorities must progress in the same way, at the same time and at the same pace. That cannot happen. Already some 60 local authorities run direct payment schemes and are several years ahead in terms of experience compared with other local authorities. Are we to hold them back until others catch up? Why? Why not benefit from their experience? Why not benefit from pluralism and let both central government and local government learn from the experience and practice of those already more experienced?
What other arguments can the Government produce against the amendment? It cannot be that the Government seek to avoid a patchwork of provision. Whether or not the Government accept the amendment, there will be a patchwork of provision on the ground. Some local authorities will set up direct payment schemes as well as maintaining third party schemes. Others will stick with only third party schemes. Others may offer vouchers. Others may limit direct payments to those receiving ILF moneys. Others may do nothing at all. Any, all or a combination of those arrangements will be possible. There will be a patchwork but instead of regarding that as a source of weakness, let us see it as a source of strength.
What other final argument can the Government have? It cannot be that central government will not trust local authority discretion. Entire social work departments each and every day are trusted by the Government to make far more significant decisions—for example, about removing a child from a family. As I said, the Government allow the local authority to make the big decision as to whether to run a scheme at all. Why, then, do the Government refuse the local authority the right to make the lesser decision as to who will be eligible? There are all sorts of decisions that local government will have to make about the scheme. They will have to

1033
decide whether to have a scheme, decide the charging policies and decide whether to set up advice and support packages. Why should not they also decide the eligibility according to their own local experience on the ground?
The amendment is a win-win amendment. It costs the Government nothing. But the Government gain from the experience on the ground. It costs the local authorities nothing; they will save money. But it facilitates choice for disabled people and is supported by disability organisations. Even at this very late stage I hope the Government will accept that there is no good or decent ground for denying disabled people who have learning difficulties or disabled people over the age of 65 the opportunity of taking advantage of direct payments. I beg to move.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, as explained by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, her three amendments would have the effect of widening the range of categories of disabled people to be included in the new direct payments system in the first stage when the Bill becomes enacted. As noble Lords will be aware, I have applauded the Government for bringing in the scheme by stages. I thought that was wise. It is a matter of forecasting. The noble Baroness said today—I had not heard her say it before—that she thought comparatively few disabled people would apply and that they would be among the younger ones. My feeling is that the new community care system is now under strain in parts of the country. It is not just a question of how much money is available from central government. It is not wise to load local authorities, even though it is a discretionary scheme, with too much more immediately.
I have in the past encouraged the Government to introduce the scheme by stages so that certain client groups—certain categories of disabled people—will be dealt with under the Bill when it is first enacted. I ask my noble friend Lady Cumberlege to confirm that it is the Government's intention, once the Bill is enacted, to extend its terms to other categories in due course when it is clear that the new system of direct payments is working efficiently and effectively. If that is the case, I would certainly hope to keep the Bill in its present form.
Lord Addington: My Lords, these amendments just ask the Government to allow local authorities to do within the rules what they have been doing outside the rules in many cases. There are no real cost implications as direct payments seem to save money—that is the evidence so far—rather than create the need for extra expenditure.
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, referred to bringing in the scheme in stages. The amendment merely says that the people who are administering the scheme should be allowed to bring it in at their own pace for themselves and those they are administering it for. Everything said by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, is taken care of by the amendment. It merely enables the scheme to become available more quickly to those who want it and to be administered by those who are ready for it. Nothing of a radical nature is suggested here. If we all want the scheme to work surely we should let those who are to implement it decide how they implement
1034
it. There is nothing radical suggested here. We want merely to allow those who are to run the scheme—those who are going to drive—have the wheel.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, when the Minister responds to the amendment, I ask her to bear in mind one simple point. The amendment directly addresses the issue of partnership between the service providers, on which the success of community care crucially depends.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, has gone to enormous lengths to find a form of words which will meet two goals; first, to allow those local authorities which can manage to do so, to have discretion over the client group; secondly, to avoid the risk of overwhelming those authorities which are less able to cope. But I am afraid that her amendment still does not meet the concern that I expressed at Report stage that where direct payments are available they should be offered to a limited group but still on a national basis.
I have spoken ad nauseam on the need to see how things go so that we can judge whether the national framework needs to be adjusted. We accept that by giving local authorities discretion, as we are, variations are introduced—a patchwork, as the noble Baroness said today and the noble Lord, Lord Carter, has said in previous debates. But this amendment will create variations not only in terms of geography but also in terms of groups which are eligible. The more that we allow the differences, the more the Government lose their capacity to judge how direct payments are working nationally and overall.
During the course of the passage of the Bill I have listened carefully to the particular concerns that have been expressed in previous debates by the noble Lord, Lord Rix, and the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy (de Knayth), over the eligibility of people with learning disabilities who are not also physically disabled. I have given them some assurances that I should like to repeat now so that the words are in Hansard. Those with learning disabilities would be included in option B, paragraph 15 of the consultation paper. We will consider carefully, before reaching a final decision on eligibility, the responses to the consultation exercise, the views expressed in your Lordships' House and the fact that this House divided so narrowly on this issue.
As we have already said, we will consider particularly carefully whether all people with learning disabilities under the age of 65 should be included in the initial eligible group and we intend to keep the eligible group under review, as suggested by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy. As the eligible group is to be specified in regulations, we will be able to expand it in the future, if we think that is appropriate, without amending primary legislation.
We also remain unconvinced about 'the way in which this amendment would work in practice. The amendment would require regular consideration and much updating of the regulations. In this respect the amendment is even more cumbersome than that tabled at Report stage. The Secretary of State would still require large amounts of information to enable him to

1035
form a judgment about each local authority which wished to expand its eligible group, and if necessary to defend that judgment in Parliament.
I recognise what the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, is seeking to achieve in this amendment. But the amendment goes no further to meet our wider concerns than the amendment which your Lordships rejected at Report stage. I therefore hope the noble Baroness will not choose to divide the House.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I thank all those who have taken part in this brief debate. Perhaps I may comment on the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, although the noble Lord, Lord Addington, has already done this for us admirably. The noble Lord suggested that community care was under strain now and that it would be unwise to add to the problems and burdens. If we were doing the opposite of what the amendment suggests—in other words, if we currently paid people cash and the Opposition Benches were proposing instead to move onto services—the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, would be absolutely right—we would be increasing the workload of local authorities as they would have to do the work in-house. However, the reverse is true. The amendment seeks to allow local authorities to offload, if I may put it that way, onto disabled people the responsibility for administering those services which otherwise the local authorities would have to administer. The amendment therefore reduces the workload and makes it more possible to deliver the objectives of care in the community which we all want. Therefore, I believe that the noble Lord's point is inappropriate.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. It is not so much a question of what the load will be eventually as bringing in a new system. The local authorities will have to get down to bringing in a new system on top of the community care responsibilities which they have at the moment. We all hope that once it has settled down and direct payments are going to individual disabled people there will be less of a load. But it is the burdening of them with a new system that I was talking about.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, again I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, has overlooked the fact that at the moment something like 60 local authorities run direct payment schemes already—
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, that is another system.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham:— and they often make payments to people with learning difficulties and those over 65 years of age. If this amendment is not accepted and those groups have to remain outside the national scheme, that same local authority will be introducing a direct payment scheme of its own to fit the Government category and have to keep in place a second scheme, which is the third party scheme, to cope with the additional people. Therefore, if the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, is concerned about the load on local authorities, they would be allowed to make that decision
1036
locally so that they are not forced into running two schemes in parallel, because the Government will not allow them to bring the two schemes together into one where it best suits local circumstances. I repeat that if this amendment is not accepted, the workload on local authorities will not be reduced but, on the contrary, increased.
I was very sorry that the Minister repeated her objections. Her basic argument is that the Government wish to go slowly to see how things go. One cannot tell how things will go unless there are also pilot schemes which pioneer and from which one can learn. We have said time and again that very often one of the difficulties with social security legislation is that it is nationwide and one never gets any pioneering or piloting or feedback in order that one can learn from experience and experiment. The amendment would allow central government and local authorities to learn from other people's best practice.
Finally, the Minister suggested that she hoped to bring people with learning difficulties into the scheme as soon as she felt that local authorities could do so. The amendment that was so narrowly defeated in this House would also have brought those over the age of 65 within the scheme, and not just those with learning difficulties. They would remain the largest groups, many of whom would welcome, want, need and benefit from it. For those groups in particular I seek the opinion of the House.
7.2 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 100; Not-Contents, 113.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Grey, E.

Addington, L.

Hamwee, B. [Teller.]

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Haskel, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Hayman, B.

Berkeley, L.

Healey, L.

Birk, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Blease, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Borrie, L.

Hughes, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Jeger, B.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Jenkins of Hillhead, L.

Carter, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Judd, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L

Kennet, L.

Craigavon, V.

Kilbracken, L.

David, B.

Kinloss, Ly.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Desai, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Diamond, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Macaulay of Bragar, L.

Dubs, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Ezra, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Falkender, B.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Falkland, V.

McNair, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

McNally, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Mallalieu, B.

Geraint, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L. [Teller.]

Mason of Barnsley, L.

1037

Mayhew, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Serota, B.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Sewel, L.

Mishcon, L.

Stedman, B.

Monkswell, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Taverne, L.

Nicol, B.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Ogmore, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Palmer, L.

Tope, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Tordoff, L.

Peston, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Varley, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Rea, L.

Whaddon, L.

Redesdale, L.

White, B.

Richard, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Rochester, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Winston, L.

Russell, E.

Young of Dartington, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Hardwicke, E.

Addison, V.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Aldington, L.

Hemphill, L.

Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L.

Henley, L.

Ashbourne, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Hothfield, L.

Barber, L.

Howe, E.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Inglewood, L.

Beloff, L.

Kenilworth, L.

Birdwood, L.

Kimball, L.

Blaker, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Blatch, B.

Leigh, L.

Bowness, L.

Lindsay, E.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Brigstocke, B.

Long, V.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Lucas, L.

Burnham, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Cadman, L.

Lyell, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Mackay of Clashfem, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Carnock, L.

Chesharn, L. [Teller.]

Marlesford, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Colwyn, L.

Mountevans, L.

Courtown, E.

Munster, E.

Cox, B.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Norfolk, D.

Cranbome, V. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Northesk, E.

Crathome, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Cross, V.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Cumberlege, B.

Peel, E.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Pender, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Dundonald, E.

Prior, L.

Eccles of Moulton, B.

Rankeillour, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Reay, L.

Elles, B.

Rees, L.

Elton, L.

Rennell, L.

Faithfull, B.

Renton, L.

Ferrers, E.

St John of Fawsley, L.

Finsberg, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Flather, B.

Seccombe, B.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Gilmour of Craigmillar, L.

Stewartby, L.

Gisborough, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Glentoran, L.

Strange, B.

Gray of Contin, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]

Hamilton of Dalzell, L.

Teviot, L.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Tollemache, L.

1038

Torrington, V.

Vinson, L.

Trumpington, B.

Wilcox, B.

Tugendhat, L.

Wynford, L.

Ullswater, V.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
7.9 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 19, at end insert ("in such a manner which, had the authority provided a service, would be subject to section 17 of the Health and Social Services and Social Security Adjudication Act 1983.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment returns us to the issue of the level playing field. I am sorry to revisit this again and to take up the time of the House; but whenever we have tried to raise this matter the Minister has said that such an amendment is not necessary, whereas the professionals, those who actually deliver the policy, believe that it is necessary. I hope that this time we may be able to persuade the Minister.
The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that the charging policy that currently applies in a local authority in respect of services should apply equally within the local authority with regard to direct payments. On Report the Minister made it clear that she entirely agreed with the argument behind the amendment: that those who receive direct payments should not be treated any less favourably than others. At the moment, a local authority may offer free services, may make a flat charge or use a means test. We hope that whatever the local authority does in respect of services, the provision for direct payments should be identical otherwise there is a perverse financial incentive to move from one to the other rather than to make the decision on the merits of the case.
The origins of charging are in the Health and Social Services and Social Security Adjudications Act 1983 which makes it clear that local authorities may take into account a person's ability to pay where it is "reasonably practicable" to do so. The phrase "reasonably practicable" in the 1983 Act has determined local authorities' charging policy for services. However, this Bill does not contain the phrase "reasonably practicable"; instead there is the phrase, "taking financial means into account". However one looks at it, that phrase implies a means test, whereas the law that frames services does not. Therefore, it appears that a local authority must means test whether or not it wants to do so.
If that is not what the Minister means to happen, the Bill is sending out the wrong signals. The Minister said on Report that if the Government were sending out the wrong signals, they would correct those wrong signals by sending out Section 7 guidance. Why? Why send out guidance to correct ambiguous wording in a Bill when you can clarify the wording of the Bill and avoid the need to send out guidance? The Bill should say what it means and should be capable of being clearly understood. How can we make the Bill clear? We could include in this Act identical wording to that in the 1983 Act, which is what we tried to persuade the Minister to

1039
accept in Committee and on Report. Alternatively, as the amendment suggests, we could refer back to the 1983 Act. Either way would stop the Bill sending out the wrong signals.
It is no use the Minister saying that the words mean the same. She may mean them to mean the same, but if when reading them people do not understand them as meaning the same, the Bill is sending out the wrong signals. The disability organisations are most concerned about that. If there is no difference between the Minister and these Benches on the intention, why are the Government resisting changing the words? At worst, to do so is harmless; at best, it makes the situation clear beyond all doubt. Why leave in an ambiguity— and ambiguity there is because people outside this House are confused— when you can clarify the position on the face of the Bill? I beg to move.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the Government intend that neither those receiving direct payments nor those receiving services should be treated more favourably than the other in the question of the financial contribution that they make towards the cost of their care.
As drafted, the Bill gives local authorities the discretion on whether or not to take someone's financial circumstances into account. It also gives them discretion on how to take someone's financial circumstances into account, provided they do not act unreasonably and ask someone to make a greater contribution than they can afford.
I have explained the Government's intention to issue guidance on this matter under Section 7 of the Local Authority Social Services Act 1970. The guidance will stress that local authorities must treat people fairly. The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, has made clear her wish to see a provision on the face of the Bill which would render the guidance unnecessary.
However, the amendment does not achieve that aim. It would require local authorities to act as if their assessment of how much someone should contribute to the cost of their care were subject to Section 17 of the Health and Social Services and Social Security Adjudications Act 1983. But Section 17 allows local authorities a great deal of discretion over their charging policies. What this amendment does not do is to require authorities to reach the same or similar result as they would if that person had been receiving the equivalent services. So in order to ensure that there is a level playing field, we would still need to issue the guidance I have described. That is the most appropriate and effective way of achieving the effect we all want to see.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, has raised the point on several occasions that although we claim that the amendment does nothing and that the position is the same with the amendment as without it, if it makes no difference, why should we not accept it? The courts may naturally assume that the amendment does something— and that that something may be different from what was intended. That is why I am so reluctant that the House should accept the amendment. If the position were unclear, I would accept the amendment. I would accept the amendment if it would change the law to achieve
1040
the desired effect. However, the position is clear. The amendment achieves nothing. Therefore, I urge your Lordships to reject it.
7.15 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, the Minister has made her position clear. At this stage I shall not push the amendment to a vote, but the Opposition will return to this matter in the Commons. However, I repeat that in legislation it is silly to have one set of words affecting the service element of a local authority's provision and a different set of words when the service equivalent becomes direct payments. To suggest two different sets of wording, which is how the Government have ended—one set relating to direct payments and the other to services—suggests that there is not a level playing field between the two and that a different construction can be placed upon them.
The matter is in the Minister's hands. The Minister could have used different words. We have tried to deal with this in different ways to see whether we can meet the Minister's objections. I repeat that the matter is in the Government's hands. They could have put the situation beyond doubt and made the position totally clear by incorporating the same words regarding direct payments as are applied to service provision. The Government chose not to do so. Both local authorities and disability organisations believe that whatever the Minister may intend, it is not what is in the Minister's head that is the issue; the issue is what is stated on the face of the Bill. The Minister has failed to align the wording although she insists that that is what is meant to happen. I do not understand it. It is silly on the Government's part; but at this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 1, line 24, at beginning insert ("Except where the authority is satisfied that the person from whom the services can be secured is suitable,").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment addresses the issue of which relative may be employed to meet the needs of somebody in receipt of direct payments. We all accept that direct payments should not replace informal family care with paid formal care. We all accept that we do not want disabled people to be put in a position where they are pressurised by family members to employ someone within the family, whom they cannot subsequently sack, when they would prefer to be independent and to employ somebody from outside the family.
We have no difficulty with the Government's position that any family member living in the same household—by definition, a close relative— should not be eligible to be paid with direct payments. I believe that all noble Lords agree with those principles—that you should not be expected to employ a family member if you do not want to do so, and that you certainly should not be able to employ a family member who lives in the same house because that would turn into formal care that which is currently informal family care.
However, the Government have gone much further than that. They have gone beyond the practice of the Independent Living Fund and have said that you may not make direct payments to members of the family, often quite distant family members, who may live on the other side of the town or village. In other words, the Government have ruled out remote relatives who do not live in the same household.
The Government have recognised that that is too blanket a ban and have already indicated that they will make some exceptions. They will make exceptions for people in ethnic communities where someone may be able to insist that they employ a person who is a member of their extended family; they will make exceptions in rural areas where there may be few people willing or available to care; they will make exceptions for people with AIDS where only a few people may be willing to take on the care role. So, in other words, the Government accept that they need to be flexible; that they need to be within the area of local authority discretion. The amendment will take that just one step further.
Disabled people should not employ relatives living outside the family home except with the express consent of the local authority. That means that the disabled person would have to obtain the agreement of the local authority to do that, and if it were clear to the social worker that the disabled person was being pressurised by the family, or the local authority was worried that abuse or exploitation might arise, that consent would not be given. The local authority, and not the disabled person, would be taking responsibility for that decision, thus freeing the disabled person from any blame within the family. Why then are we pushing this matter? Why do we believe that it is important to extend the flexibility, the discretion?
First, a "family member" as defined by government comes from an arbitrary group. The definition excludes, for example, the ability to pay someone who is the partner of one's stepson who lives on the other side of the town. It excludes, for example, one's right to employ the partner of one's nephew on the grounds that that person is a member of the family.
I do not know about other Members of your Lordships' House. I have met some of my nephews' partners but there are some partners whom I have never met. Are we saying that someone that I have never met is a member of the family such that I could not employ that person in a direct payment situation? One has only to say that to show that such a definition of "family" is absurd. What happens when a person is employing someone to be the carer and to help with the daily tasks and that person meets one's visiting nephew or stepson and they become partners? Does one then have to sack them? That is the implication of the Government's position.
First, as I say, the notion of family is far too arbitrary and too widely cast. No one objects to restricting the ability to employ on direct payments close relatives living in the family home, but the definition is too widely drawn at the moment.
Secondly, and this is a different argument, many disabled people prefer the impersonality of employing a stranger. They want that employer/employee relationship. However, other disabled people, especially those who feel vulnerable, may want the opposite; they fear strangers in their home. Many of the tasks they will be asking for help with are intimate. They involve toileting, for example. They feel vulnerable. They want someone whom they can trust and with whom they feel comfortable. That may be the nephew's partner, the niece or the partner of a stepson. It may be someone whom they already know, with whom they can relax, they trust and with whom they would not have to build up a new relationship. Such a distant family member is often much more flexible, more willing and can be called in at odd times and is cheerful about that. They are more committed; they are more constant; they are more reliable.
As I say, some disabled people would want the opposite— an impersonal relationship. But where a disabled person wants someone with whom they are comfortable, whom they can trust and who is not a close member of the family, why should they not have the right to employ that person if the local authority is satisfied that that choice is free and informed?
It is not always easy to employ someone for such intimate work. By disqualifying distant relatives who live outside the home we are narrowing unnecessarily the group from which a disabled person may recruit.
Finally, the amendment would align direct payments of local authorities with the ILF scheme which distinguishes between close relatives living within the home and those who live outside. Accepting the amendment would allow a seamless provision between the local authority tranche of money and the ILF tranche so that different rules about whom one can employ do not apply to the different schemes.
The amendment requires the consent of the local authority. Thus it will prevent any exploitation or abuse. The local authority has to be satisfied that the disabled person wants it and that it is in their best interests. But if it is in their best interests, the disabled person wants it and it is such a distant relative that they are outside the home, why in heaven's name do we not allow it, just as the ILF has done? Over many years it has had no problems with that. I beg to move.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, as the noble Baroness said, we are seeking to draw a balance between preventing the formalisation of informal care and not prohibiting sensible and appropriate arrangements. We want to avoid direct payments being used to pay people who might otherwise provide care on an informal basis, for all the reasons I have explained in previous debates. But in doing so we do not wish unnecessarily to restrict the choice of providers available to people who receive direct payments.
The restrictions on employing relatives and friends which we propose to make in regulations and guidance are included in the consultation paper, and we will need to consider the responses to the consultation exercise before reaching final decisions on those issues. On Report, the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, suggested a

1043
change of emphasis to give local authorities more discretion in deciding whom to allow to be employed. We find that a most interesting suggestion and one which we are considering very carefully. I am sure the noble Baroness will not, however, expect the Government to commit themselves before we have heard the views of those responding to the consultation paper.
The amendment goes somewhat further and proposes that local authorities should be able to make exceptions to the content of our proposed regulations. The Government are very carefully considering their proposals. We are consulting on the content of our regulations and guidance and will make our decision in the light of the responses to that consultation and the debates in this House. We shall then decide what we consider appropriate to include in regulations and what in guidance. But having made that decision we do not think it appropriate for local authorities to be able to make exceptions to the regulations, as proposed in the amendment. The areas where we think it is appropriate for local authorities to use their discretion will be covered in guidance.
We feel that the noble Baroness made a persuasive case on her original suggestion on Report. As I said, we are thinking about it carefully. I hope that with that assurance she will not press the amendment.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I thought that this amendment might be preferable to the previous one, but the Minister tells me that that amendment is better than this one, even though it was not acceptable at the time. I am well content.
In so far as the Minister is saying that the Government will consider this matter seriously, I cannot obviously hope for anything more at this stage. Obviously the Government are right to say that they must wait for responses to the consultation paper and that the Opposition cannot reasonably expect the Government to decide before they have received those responses. That is right, but it would have been even better if the Government had not introduced the Bill until after the consultation paper responses had been seen, so that we all shared that body of information and opinion.
I am sure that it is not the Minister's fault, but it is regrettable when the Minister gives as a reason for not accepting the amendment that her consultation paper was not out in good time for us to get back the information upon the basis of which we could build our amendments. It is extraordinarily unreasonable for the Government to blame us, because we do not have the advantage of a consultation paper which has gone out too late for us to have the responses in time to debate the Bill.
One talks about fingering the Opposition, but that seems unusually perverse. Nonetheless, as a result, and in the expectation that the consultation paper will confirm what we had been hoping— that there is a need to extend the group so that disabled people can employ relatives, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 not moved.]
7.30 p.m.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass. This is an important piece of legislation. People throughout the United Kingdom who receive direct payments will have more independence, choice and control over the way they live their lives. Disabled people have been asking for this legislation and in preparing the Bill we have found their views essential. We look forward to considering their responses to the consultation exercise.
The noble Baroness suggested that we were blaming the Opposition. There is no question of blame but I believe that she realises that we need to hear the views.
I would like to thank all your Lordships for the underlying support given to this Bill, in particular the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, for testing our proposals so thoroughly. At the Report stage the noble Lord, Lord Rix, referred to the "reason tinged by passion", which he felt was evident in many of your Lordships' debates. That is a good description of the debates that have taken place on this Bill, not least those initiated by the noble Lord.
I would also like to pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Addington, the noble Baronesses, Lady Darcy (de Knayth) and Lady Hamwee, the noble Lord, Lord Carter, the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, who is sorry that she cannot be here today, the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, and to my noble friends Lord Campbell of Croy, Lord Hayhoe, Lord Jenkin, Lady Seccombe, Lady Faithfull and Lord Swinfen. We are at one in wanting direct payments to succeed.
My noble friend Lady Faithfull was anxious that we should have some regulation over care providers. We understand her anxieties but we believe that probably this is not the right Bill to bring forward her proposals.
We have given several commitments in response to the points raised by your Lordships. The Government have amended the Bill as recommended by the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee. We are committed to giving Parliament a report on the workings of the Act within three years of commencement. As regards the financial contribution that people may be required to make, we are committed to issuing Section 7 guidance to stress that local authorities must treat people fairly, and should treat those receiving direct payments in a manner equivalent to those receiving services.
As regards Section 7 guidance, we will also make clear that payments should be sufficient to allow people to buy services of adequate quality, taking account of any legal liabilities involved in doing so. We will issue practice guidance to encourage local authorities to give support to people who receive direct payments. We intend to tell local authorities that before people consent to receive direct payments they should ensure that they are made aware that they may have responsibilities as employers.
We are thinking of producing a guide for people who receive direct payments. If we did so it would certainly cover the issue of employing staff. We will produce some training materials for local authorities in order to help them to train their staff and we will continue to involve disabled people and local authorities in the

1045
development of this policy. We have also asked the Technical Advisory Group to assist us in looking at what should be in our guidance, considering whether we should produce a guide for people who receive payments and, if so, what it should contain, and thinking about what kind of training materials we should produce for local authorities. We have also given a commitment that we will consult widely on our guidance in draft.
We have discussed at length many of the issues covered in the consultation document and in particular eligibility. We understand the frustration which many of your Lordships have felt over the fact that the consultation has not yet been completed. But we must allow time for people to consider and to respond to the document. We intend to keep the issue of eligibility under review once direct payments are available.
Our shared aim is to create the best possible framework for this exciting new venture. The Government believe that the framework set out by the Bill is right. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.— (Baroness Cumberlege.)
7.34 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, we are delighted that the Bill is in place. Many of us in the Chamber have campaigned for it for several years while the disability organisations, such as DIG and BCDOP, and local authorities, such as Kingston, have campaigned for it for many more years. They and we are delighted to see the Bill going through Parliament.
The Bill provides that the care system must fit the needs and the wishes of disabled people rather than disabled people fitting the management structures, rotas and rigidities of a formal care system. The Bill restores the right for disabled people to choose and the right to have spontaneity in their lives. Many people who have received direct payments from the independent living fund have found that it has turned their lives around. People who would otherwise be in institutional residential care have come out to live in the community, have married, have had children, have held down a job and have contributed to society all that they and we would wish. That is what the principle of the Bill is about and it is absolutely right.
As always, the Minister has been informed and courteous. By now we expect nothing less. I am sure that I speak for many noble Lords in welcoming and congratulating a former Conservative Back-Bencher who a couple of years ago introduced a Private Member's Bill, the noble Lord, Lord McColl, who too must be gratified at seeing the Bill going through in its present state.
It is a particular pleasure to thank my noble friend Lord Carter who knows far more about disability issues than I will ever learn and whose wise advice is always available to help people such as myself. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Addington, the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, on the Liberal Democrat Benches as well as those on the Cross-Benches for their informed
1046
contributions. I include the mobility brigade who have been inhibited in attending tonight only by the snow and not by the issues.
We have always learnt from contributions made by Members on the Conservative Benches. They include the noble Lords, Lord Renton and Lord Campbell of Croy, and the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull. They have real expertise on the subject from which the House has consistently benefited.
I have one regret. The Bill is not faintly party political and no issues of money or ideology or points of principle have been involved. Nonetheless, time and again the Government have simply resisted or been obdurate where I believe they should have accepted amendments. Instead, we have had insights, such as unripe time and running before walking, rather than a real recognition of the arguments. I regret that, particularly as regards eligibility. I hope that the issues that we have failed to clarify in this House will be clarified in another place.
It is a good Bill but it could have been even better. Even so, we are not greatly distressed because the powers of regulation, including the powers to make Section 7 guidance, which carries heavy weight, will permit the next Minister for disabled people to deliver within a few months every amendment that this Government have resisted but which disabled people, disability organisations and local authorities wish him to. This is a good Bill and an even better Bill may emerge from the Commons. If not, an even better Bill is around the corner. In the meantime, we wish this Bill happily on its way.
7.38 p.m.
Lord Addington: My Lords, we on these Benches support the Bill. It is not exactly the Bill we wanted. It is not sufficiently wide in scope and it has certain limitations, but it is a start. It is true that regulation may well include other people at a later date. I am a little more sceptical about regulation; I would rather see the provision in front of me. However, take what is given and be thankful.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, who between them have shaken the issues extremely firmly and have saved me from having to give too many examples, which I do not like to do. I also thank my noble friends on these and other Benches who have given the Bill such a good airing from so many points of view. It is a pity that so many people who have helped the process of the Bill cannot be here tonight.
Perhaps I may mention in particular my noble friend Lady Seear who has missed the latter stages of the Bill because she is recuperating from an operation. Although she was briefly out of hospital today she has had to return. I hope that my noble friend will soon be back with us and will encourage the Bill in the future.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I must confess that, although this is the last opportunity that one has, this is the first time that I have spoken on this Bill in your Lordships' House. The reason is that I was absent through being unwell.

1047
I too welcome the Bill and I am very glad to know that it applies to those who are in the homeless foundation scheme of MENCAP because I was chairman of MENCAP when that scheme was introduced.
However, I have a regret to express; namely, that the Bill does not apply to people who are in village communities. I believe that that is an omission which should be cured in another place. It so happens that inquiries have shown that in village communities, mentally handicapped people— if I may dare to call them that in these modern times— have all the facilities which they would have if they were living in homeless foundation places or in other schemes within the community, whether or not they are local authority schemes. I have a daughter who for many years has lived in a village settlement and has been very well looked after there. Those who are capable of being trained in those settlements are trained and that is another advantage of them.
There are those who prefer to be in a rural setting or whose parents prefer them to be there. There are such schemes already operated by local authorities and under the National Health Service, especially in Surrey and in the north of the country. I feel that it is a serious omission from the Bill that it does not apply to those people in village settlements.
I know that my noble friend and the Secretary of State have been giving some thought to that matter. Unfortunately, they had not given thought to it in time for it to be included in the Bill when it was first published. But I most earnestly hope that they are keeping an open mind about it and will realise the equity of the matter. Why should those who are in urban hostels be treated better and given a better opportunity than those who are so well cared for in village communities? I hope that that will receive attention in another place.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, this Bill certainly heads in the right direction and will be very popular in Scotland. It certainly clarifies for all time that direct payments can be made legally under the Social Work (Scotland) Act as it amends and extends Section 12 to establish that.
In Scotland, our next task is to persuade the Secretary of State for Scotland to move a wee bit quicker than clown south and to work with a wider group.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I just heard the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, say that the mobile
1048
Bench is not present. I at least have only half a voice and that is the reason. I listened to the debate with great interest from below the Bar.
I am president of the Spinal Injuries Association which was one of the organisations that campaigned for this legislation. It is extremely pleased that some disabled people will be able to take more control of their lives and it believes that this is a step forward. I thank everybody who has supported the needs of disabled people.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, despite the clock, I know that time has not stood still. For all we know, it may be snowing outside and we need to get home. I thank all your Lordships who have supported the underlying principle of the Bill. I suspect that if the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, and the noble Lord, Lord Addington, were writing an end-of-term report they would say, "Good progress but could do better". However, I suspect that that is nearly always the case with a Bill that is taken through your Lordships' House.
Perhaps I may quickly clarify one point that was made on the last debate. I spoke about the noble Baroness's proposals and I said that we were considering them very carefully. I should point out that I was referring to the guidance concerning who may be paid to provide the service and not the amendments of the Bill. I wanted to make that quite clear but I think that the noble Baroness understood that.
With the support of your Lordships, perhaps I may send our best wishes to the noble Baroness, Lady Seear. I hope that she makes a very quick recovery. I am pleased also that my noble friend Lord Renton has returned to the House in good health.
I listened carefully to what my noble friend said about village communities. Perhaps he will take comfort from the fact that my noble friend Lord Pearson put his views very strongly and those views coincide with those of the noble Lord, Lord Renton. My noble friend Lord Pearson expressed those opinions with force on Second Reading and he sought to amend the Bill. I do not wish to go into the detail of that debate at this late hour.
Finally, I feel that we are stepping forward into a new world. We must tread carefully to see how direct payments work in practice. But I believe that this Bill will enable us to build a solid foundation for the long-term future of another aspect of community care. I commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.
House adjourned at thirteen minutes before eight o'clock.

  Libya: Sanctions
  Libya: Sanctions
  Libya: Lockerbie Disaster Suspects
  Libya: Lockerbie Disaster Suspects
  Iraq: Sanctions
  Iraq: Sanctions
  Bett Review
  Bett Review
  Army Careers Information Offices
  Army Careers Information Offices
  Environmental Statistics: Publication Policy
  Environmental Statistics: Publication Policy
  Private Sector Housing Renewal: Funding
  Private Sector Housing Renewal: Funding
  English Nature: Review
  English Nature: Review
  Environment Agency: Committee Membership
  Environment Agency: Committee Membership
  Northern Ireland: Inquiries and Reviews
  Northern Ireland: Inquiries and Reviews
  AIDS-related Expenditure
  AIDS-related Expenditure
  AIDS Research: Use of Animals
  AIDS Research: Use of Animals
  DSS Efficiency Savings and Staff Numbers
  DSS Efficiency Savings and Staff Numbers
  Electronic Monitoring
  Electronic Monitoring
  Shipping Industry: Training Programmes
  Shipping Industry: Training Programmes