Sitting of 11 January 1996

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

  CITY OF WESTMINSTER BILL [Lords]
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That the Promoters of the City of Westminster Bill [Lords] may, notwithstanding anything in the Standing Orders or practice of this House, proceed with the Bill in the present Session; and the Petition for the Bill shall be deemed to have been deposited and all Standing Orders applicable thereto shall be deemed to have been complied with;
  That if the Bill is brought from the Lords in the present Session, the Agents for the Bill shall deposit in the Private Bill Office a declaration signed by them stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill which was brought from the Lords in the last Session;
  That, as soon as a certificate by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office, that such a declaration has been so deposited, has been laid upon the Table of the House, the Bill shall be read the first and second time and committed (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read and committed) and shall be committed to the Chairman of Ways and Means, who shall make such Amendments thereto as were made by him in the last Session, and shall report the Bill as amended to the House forthwith, and the Bill, so amended, shall be ordered to lie upon the Table;
  That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during any previous Session.
  Hon. Members: Object.
  To be considered on Thursday 18 January.

Oral Answers to Questions
  TREASURY

    Alcoholic Drinks and Tobacco (Smuggling)
    Sir Fergus Montgomery: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what priority he attaches to tackling the smuggling of alcoholic drinks. [7076]
    Mr. Hawkins: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he is taking to counter the smuggling of tobacco and alcoholic drinks. [7078]
    The Paymaster General (Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory): The Government take a serious view of smugglers, who seek to evade payment of revenue duties and undermine legitimate trade. Customs and Excise has about 250 single market excise staff specifically engaged in countering smuggling of alcohol
    314
    and tobacco. Additionally, other Customs staff involved in audit and investigation work make an important contribution.
    In the 12 months to 30 September last year, Customs and Excise made more than 3,500 detections related to alcohol and tobacco with a revenue value of £7.6 million. Smugglers run the risk of losing the imported goods and the vehicle used to transport them, and of a prison sentence of up to seven years.
    Sir Fergus Montgomery: Is my right hon. Friend working with the honest traders in cracking down on smugglers? Is he aware of the effect of smuggling on the businesses of honest traders, who play by the rules and are penalised for their honesty?
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Yes, I take seriously the fact that smuggling is not only anti-social and illegal but undermines legitimate traders. That is why, last November, Customs and Excise formed an excise alliance with trade groups representing those who make, transport, distribute and sell alcoholic drinks and tobacco, to exchange information about smuggling and to co-ordinate action to stop that traffic.
    Mr. Hawkins: What my right hon. Friend has said will be welcome to tobacconists and those in the licensed trade in my constituency, who have been concerned about the problem for a long time. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend for the active steps that he has always taken to meet groups of people involved in the trade from my constituency and from many other constituencies. Has there been any opportunity to employ additional staff to deal with the important and serious problem of smuggling. Was it possible to introduce any particular measure in the latter part of last year, or will it be possible for the future?
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Yes, I can give that assurance. In the present financial year, Customs and Excise has deployed additional staff where there is a particular risk. I am pleased to say that 20 additional excise verification officers have been allocated to work against smuggling during the coming financial year. We take the threat seriously, and deploy resources accordingly.
    Mr. Skinner: I think the Government have a cheek to talk about controlling smuggling of any kind, because when I met the customs officers in Southend last year, their biggest complaint was not about 20 new workers but about the fact that thousands of them had been given the sack and sent to the dole queue. What they are concerned about—
    Madam Speaker: Order. I should like to hear a question from the hon. Gentleman. He has not yet put a question to the Minister.
    Mr. Skinner: If the Minister is really concerned about dealing with smuggling, what he ought to do—
    Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is a long-standing Member of the House, and he knows that it is Question Time. He may have a perfectly genuine question to put to the Minister, but he must put it in the form of a question, not make a statement.
    Mr. Skinner: Why does the Minister not get off the backs of the customs officers and allow them to do the job that they are intended for—dealing with all those problems? Instead of talking about 20 staff being added, why does he not ensure that the thousands who have been sacked get their jobs back?
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: It is good to know that old Labour has survived into the new year, and still believes that public services require ever-more staff at ever-higher public cost. We believe in deploying staff effectively—where the risk and threat arise. I explained in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Hawkins) that we are deploying extra excise verification officers to deal with the smuggling risk in the areas affected.
    Ms Primarolo: Is the Minister aware of the significant discrepancy between the amount of beer supposedly exported to France from the United Kingdom and the amount of beer that the French imported from us? According to official statistics, some 107,000 barrels of beer disappeared into thin air in 1994, whereas previously the two sets of figures were approximately balanced. We must assume that not all of that beer was drunk on a booze cruise somewhere. Will the Minister confirm that he is aware of, and concerned about, the damage being done to revenue into the Treasury, the growth of illegal duty scams and criminal activity and the threat to jobs in this country? Could he explain to the House the Government's strategy for tackling this growing criminal activity?
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I do not know whether the hon. Lady wrote her question before she heard my earlier reply, but I have outlined the additional staff and resources that we are deploying. The hon. Lady has reminded the House of something that is at least partly true—that cross-border shopping is only a part of the trade and smuggling is only a part of the problem. There is also a threat caused by the diversion of exports back on to the home market having received the repayment of excise duty. It is to counter all of those threats and illegalities that we have formed the excise alliance with the trade and deployed additional staff. In his Budget, my right hon. and learned Friend—recognising that specific problems affected certain excise items—either froze or reduced duty in some cases.
    Mr. John Townend: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the successes of Customs, but may I remind him that hundreds of millions of pounds of smuggled goods are coming over? If we could only take the simple precaution of having a customs officer open the doors of the dozens of transit vans which come over on the cross-channel ferries, we could stop this. However, I am told that that is against European Union regulations. If French industry was being damaged, can one imagine that the French would take any notice of the regulations? If we cannot open the doors of vans at the port, why can we not have a road block 50 yd down the road?
    Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: As I think that my hon. Friend recognises, the single market in Europe means that a port is no longer a routine fiscal frontier. However, that does not mean that we cannot open doors and examine cargoes where excise duty fraud is suspected. When I visited Dover last year, I saw the excise verification officers carrying out effective checks to counter the menace.

    Economic and Monetary Union
    Mr. Spearing: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what criteria, other than those specified in the treaty of European Union, Her Majesty's Government apply as relevant to successful monetary convergence within the European Economic Community. [7077]
    Mr. Purchase: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are his conditions for deciding whether Britain should use its opt-out in respect of proceeding towards economic and monetary union. [7082]
    Mr. Renton: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the permanence of the convergence criteria in the Maastricht treaty for countries wishing to join the single currency. [7087]
    The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. William Waldegrave): The convergence criteria are set out in the Maastricht treaty. We regard differences in productivity growth and flexibility of labour markets as also being relevant. The opt-out negotiated by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister means that we are not committed to join a single currency. We would seek to join only if it were in our national interest at the time.
    Mr. Spearing: Does the Minister agree that the criteria would have knock-on effects for the criteria used for determining Treasury policy? Is the Minister aware that article 109.j.1. and protocol 6 article 3 state that a country must operate successfully inside the exchange rate mechanism—in whatever band—for two years before 1 July 1998? Would not that criterion produce problems for the Government's policy and for the country? Will the Minister list those problems? Would they include some of the difficulties being faced by Mr. Juppé and President Chirac?
    Mr. Waldegrave: On the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, all those matters will have to be judged at the time a country decides to go in or not. On his second point, which related to ERM membership before a country can join any single currency, the Prime Minister has made it perfectly clear that we would not be rejoining the ERM in this Parliament, and that we would not be going back into an ERM comparable to the old one in any Parliament in the future. Therefore, it will be for the Heads of Government at the time to judge whether the exchange rate economic criteria have been met.
    Mr. Purchase: Would it not be a much easier decision for the Government to take if only they attended to the weakness and the lack of competitiveness of our leading companies—factors that have been exemplified by the appalling trade figures that have been announced? Would it not be better for the Government to spend their time attending to that so that we became a more prosperous nation, on the back of wealth-creating industries, than to trouble themselves over the niceties of convergence policy, which will eventually strangle us in any event?
    Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Member is a little confused. If one looks at the list of the most profitable companies in Europe, one finds that the lion's share of them are British companies. The hon. Gentleman is also unwise to go on one month's trade figures. The Labour party suffered from that mistake back in 1970. He might like to wait for the next month's trade figures, because the overall position on trade is not at all bad.

    317
    The hon. Gentleman would be unwise to wish to mimic some of the conditions that exist in Europe, particularly in the socialist countries. Although it gives me no pleasure to say it, as our unemployment rate steadily declines towards 2 million, it is sad to see German unemployment rising towards 4 million.
    Mr. Renton: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there are two different views about the convergence criteria in the Maastricht treaty? One view is that they could be regarded as shackles which will lead to higher unemployment in some of the weaker European economies; the other is that they are a totally necessary discipline to ensure that any country joining the European single currency has been exercising proper budgetary control, and control over its budgetary deficit. To which of those views does my right hon. Friend subscribe?
    Mr. Waldegrave: My view is that the disciplines that we have accepted are disciplines that we would have been happy to accept, whether or not Maastricht or convergence criteria existed. It is sensible to manage the economy in order to reduce debt and to have low inflation. It is sensible for the whole continent of Europe to manage its economy so that there is the minimum disruption and movement.
    Sir Peter Tapsell: While I am much heartened to hear my right hon. Friend re-affirm the Prime Minister's statement that a Conservative Government will never allow this country to rejoin an exchange rate mechanism, how is that to be reconciled with the fact, if I am correct, that the machinery for joining a single European currency at any time requires re-entry into the ERM 12 months beforehand?
    Mr. Waldegrave: That question is related to the one asked by the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing). It will be for the Heads of Government at any future summit to judge whether any exchange rate criteria have been met. As the Prime Minister has said to the House, the exchange rate mechanism, with its narrow bands, that existed at the time of the Maastricht treaty cannot be said truly to exist at all now. The problems for the Heads of Government will be interesting.
    Mr. Shore: Following the Minister's interesting replies and his confirmation of what the Prime Minister previously told the House about not joining the ERM in this Parliament or any other Parliament—if the Government are re-elected—can he say clearly whether membership of the ERM is still a condition for joining a single currency? It is not just a matter of interpretation, because the condition that we are a member for at least two years before the operation date is written into the treaty itself. Is the Minister saying that provisions written into the treaty are just a matter for interpretation and consideration, or is he saying that the treaty has no real validity?
    Mr. Waldegrave: The right hon. Member makes a fair and interesting point. I think that the Heads of Government will find themselves in some difficulty, because the ERM which existed at the time of the Maastricht treaty does not now, according to most interpretations, exist.
    Mr. Yeo: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the key criteria for judging whether we should join a single currency is whether it will be in the national interest to do so? Does he further agree that, in order to preserve that freedom, the vital consideration at that time—indeed during the whole of the intervening period—is neither to rule out the possibility of joining within any specified time frame nor to enter into any commitment to join until we can judge whether it is in our interest?
    Mr. Waldegrave: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. It is the achievement of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to have put this country, uniquely in Europe, in that position. It is odd that the Labour party, and especially the Leader of the Opposition—who now describes himself as a born-again Thatcherite, which is a surprising description—apparently see no constitutional issues at all, according to the quotations that I have read, in joining the European monetary union. It is for that reason that my right hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones) was right to put that point to the Leader of the Opposition the last time the House discussed these matters. As the Leader of the Opposition sees no constitutional or other implications, we must take it that, if we have met the convergence criteria, he regards whether we join as merely a technical matter. That is not the position on the Conservative side of the House.
    Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Given that the Prime Minister has failed to persuade the Italian Government to co-operate in delaying the start of the potential EMU, in spite of the Italian Government's difficulties in meeting the criteria—a meeting perhaps of the unwilling and the unready—will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that it remains Government policy to validate their opt-out by ensuring that they are capable of meeting the time scale, because otherwise he must accept that the opt-out will have no validity, in or out?
    Mr. Waldegrave: The United Kingdom will meet the criteria. A large number of other countries—most surprisingly, even Germany itself at the moment—do not meet the criteria. The situation that was foreseen at Maastricht is, in any case, not going to come about. It was then foreseen that all the countries of Europe, with the exception of the United Kingdom, which had negotiated an opt-out, were going to move smoothly into a single currency. It is clear that, whatever happens, a large part of the European Union is not going to join a single currency—at least, not at the first available date.
    Mr. Nicholls: Given that my right hon. Friend has a powerful and inventive mind, what conceivable circumstances could come about which would make it in this country's best interest to surrender for ever its fiscal independence, which would be the inevitable consequence of going into a European single currency?
    Mr. Waldegrave: It was a saying of the previous Prime Minister, my right hon. and noble Friend Lady Thatcher, that it is unwise to take decisions until one has to take them. It is the strength of this country's position, negotiated by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, that, if we want to, we can consider those issues at the right time. At the moment, they are entirely hypothetical.
    Mr. Mike O'Brien: What is the Government's policy on the use of the opt-out? Will the right hon. Gentleman

    319
    set out the criteria for determining the national interest? Are they summed up by the former Chief Secretary to the Treasury, who said:
    "I don't want to see a single currency—period",
    or by the Deputy Prime Minister, who said that there can be
    "no truly unified market without a single currency…A close association of monetary policies will be needed if the Single Market is not to be put at risk"?
    Will the right hon. Gentleman end the confusion on Government policy on the opt-out?
    Mr. Waldegrave: There is no confusion on the Conservative side of the House. It is a little unwise of the Labour Front Bench, half of whom were elected on a platform of leaving the European Community altogether and now regard whether we go into a single currency as merely a technical matter, to accuse us of confusion on this matter. I could read out quotations, to the embarrassment of members of the Labour Front-Bench team, about their position of conscience on how important it was to leave the European Community. Some of their right hon. and hon. Friends have stuck to that; they have thrown it all overboard.
    Mr. Jenkin: Is my right hon. Friend aware that some people argue that the opt-out from the single currency has damaged the country's interest? Is he aware that that argument is advanced by Opposition Front-Bench Members? Does that not seem extraordinary when they may well support us using the opt-out if it is not in our economic interest to join a single currency?
    Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend is exactly right. The Leader of the Opposition on this, as on many other matters, has tucked himself in behind my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and takes—as far as I can tell, because the position changes from day to day—more or less the same position. He would be very unwise not to, because for any party to say that it would not look at the issue at the time in the interests of this country seems to me unwise.

    Economic Confidence
    Mr. Mackinlay: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proposals he has to promote and encourage economic confidence. [7079]
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Michael Jack): The Government's policies are increasing confidence by creating the right conditions for sustainable growth through low inflation, sound public finances and a continuing programme of structural reform.
    Mr. Mackinlay: That is all very interesting, but does the Minister not realise that his complacent attitude will be received with dismay and anger by the millions of people who are languishing in the frustration of negative equity, who cannot sell their homes to take jobs elsewhere in the country because no one is prepared to purchase their homes? Many of them are people who have not got jobs and people who are not sure about their employment prospects. People are not prepared to invest in homes because they have no confidence. What is the Minister going to do about the great burden of negative equity that faces many of the constituents of my hon. Friends, and
    320
    many of the constituents of Conservative Members—people who voted for them at the last general election, especially in the south-east of England?
    Mr. Jack: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will calm down for a moment so that I can give him some useful information on this subject. He may recall that, over Christmas, the Halifax building society issued an excellent report, which pointed out—
    Mr. Mackinlay: What did it say last year?
    Mr. Jack: Wait for it. The best news comes a little later in my presentation. The Halifax building society's report said that it saw a recovery in the housing market and increasing prices. On our part, my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor announced a reduction in interest rates, creating the lowest mortgage level for 30 years. In case the hon. Gentleman was half asleep at Christmas, that was good news for those who want movement in the housing market.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Although I accept much of what my hon. Friend has just said, does he accept that, to regenerate economic confidence, it is important to regenerate the housing market? Although he was right to say that the Halifax building society sees a modest rise in house prices and anticipates an increase in house prices next year, last year's figures show that house prices decreased by 1 per cent. on the previous year. Will he therefore press the Chancellor yet again to ignore Mr. Eddie George, the Governor of the Bank of England, and further reduce interest rates, which would bring about confidence not only in the housing market but industrially?
    Mr. Jack: My hon. Friend advocates some important points. He will have noted that, at the last meeting between the Chancellor and the Governor of the Bank of England, when they jointly appeared at a press conference, they were in accord on a reduction in interest rates. I hope that my hon. Friend will not be entirely seduced by the Opposition, thinking that confidence is a single-club issue—that of the housing market. Important though it is, our economic policies are creating low inflation and the prospect of 3 per cent. growth next year, and unemployment is already down by more than 700,000. Those clear indicators of growing confidence in the British economy will cause business investment to grow by a further 9 per cent. this year.
    Sir James Molyneaux: Does the Minister agree that confidence could be further restored by simplifying the methods of supplying grant assistance to relatively small companies, particularly those that employ fewer than 20 people? Might one of the instruments to do that be the enterprise investment scheme?
    Mr. Jack: I am glad that the hon. Member—[HON. MEMBERS: "The right hon. Member."] I apologise to the right hon. Member. He mentioned the enterprise investment scheme, which is important as it enables those who wish to advance venture capital and seek an involvement in small, growing companies to realise the dream of growth in the small company sector. If the right hon. Gentleman has points that he would like to discuss, I should be happy to hear from him, because that important scheme is working well.
    Mr. Forman: Is it not clear that economic confidence will be revived further and sustained provided that the

    321
    Government follow their current prudent fiscal policy and a cautious monetary policy? Is not the clearest evidence of the success so far the vote of confidence given by all the inward investors in this country, both direct and portfolio?
    Mr. Jack: My hon. Friend is right. The Opposition have chastised us in recent months on league tables but they do not like to talk about the fact that the United Kingdom is top of the league table for inward investment. We are confident of our economic policies because we can answer questions about interest rates, growth and employment. The hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) should consider the fact that his party is incapable of answering any economic question on any aspect.
    Mr. Andrew Smith: The Financial Secretary and his right hon. and hon. Friends should turn their minds to the reason why there are 1 million fewer people in jobs than there were when his right hon. Friend became Prime Minister. At a time when one in five households of working age have no one bringing in a wage, what effect will it have on confidence now to abolish the community action programme, denying help to long-term unemployed youngsters, who need it most? Is that not typical of the Conservative party, creating a divided Britain and denying the long-term unemployed a stake in society?
    Mr. Jack: The hon. Gentleman has failed to notice the many efforts that the Government have made to help people, such as jobseekers' programmes and education, to equip them for the world of work, and the fact that, under our economic policies, 700,000 people have left the unemployment register. It is about time that the hon. Gentleman considered his constituency and the success of the Rover car company in Cowley. That company has been recruiting about 4,000 new employees and is making about £200 million of new investment. That is the key to lasting prosperity. Let the hon. Gentleman look in his own back yard for an answer to his question.
    Mr. Evennett: Is my hon. Friend aware that businesses, pensioners and families all appreciate low inflation, which the Government have achieved? Further, does my hon. Friend agree that the greatest threat to economic confidence in this country would be the election of a Labour Government?
    Mr. Mackinlay: What are you doing about it?
    Mr. Jack: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Evennett), and I will tell the hon. Member for Thurrock what the people are saying in that constituency. They are saying that they understand that the Government have sound economic policies and that the Government can ask the searching economic questions, unlike the Opposition, who fail ever to answer any question about what they would do about interest rates, and about what their economic and tax policies are. The Labour party is the party of "don't know"; we are the party that does know, and we know that we have the confidence of the British people on economic policy.

    Budget Statement
    Mr. Canavan: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received about his Budget statement. [7080]
    Mr. Waldegrave: My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has received widespread
    322
    commendation for a responsible Budget which will sustain economic recovery, help control inflation, and put money back into people's pockets.
    Mr. Canavan: Is the Minister aware that the recent severe weather meant that many thousands of people throughout the country suffered from freezing or flooding in their homes, yet the Budget will make things even worse by imposing a cut of 31 per cent. on the home energy efficiency scheme, which will mean that at least 200,000 homes will not be properly insulated and more than 1,000 jobs will be destroyed? Will the Government therefore reverse that deplorable decision and also reduce the rate of VAT on domestic fuel, which is causing widespread hardship?
    Mr. Waldegrave: On the latter point, the hon. Gentleman should address himself to hon. Members on his own Front Bench, who failed to table a motion that would have enabled a vote on VAT on fuel.
    On the former point, it seems sensible that help should go to those people who need it, and not to pensioners and others who may be well able to afford it, so we should be aiming that valuable scheme at those who really need the help.
    Sir Mark Lennox-Boyd: Has my right hon. Friend received representations from the bingo industry? In the recent Budget, general gaming duty was cut by 1 per cent. and pools duty by 6 per cent., but the bingo industry was excluded. That appears extraordinarily unfair to an industry that provides gambling with entertainment to millions of people, is well run and even in this day, when the national lottery is advertising throughout the country, is prevented from advertising its prize money to attract the public.
    Mr. Waldegrave: I am aware of the worries that have been expressed by that industry. Especially, I believe that the latter part of my hon. Friend's question, which related to the possibility of deregulating the industry somewhat, perhaps on the advertising side, would touch a sympathetic chord in the Government. We shall examine those proposals closely.
    Mr. Andrew Smith: Further to the Chancellor's remarks in his Budget statement about private finance, will the Chief Secretary tell the House how the Government are responding to the representations that Eurotunnel is making for Government guarantees to underwrite a bond to refinance its massive debt? Has a request been received by Ministers? How are the Government responding? Will they stick to their policy of no subsidy, and will the Chief Secretary give an undertaking to make a statement to the House before there is any change?
    Mr. Waldegrave: There is no change in policy. There is a growing consensus between the two sides of the House on private finance in general. As the Labour party begins to understand the policy, I think that it is beginning to support it, although there are some exceptions among Labour Front Benchers.
    Mr. John Greenway: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the reduction of 1 per cent. in general betting duty has been warmly welcomed throughout the racing industry? Will he take this opportunity to encourage all elements of the racing industry—including bookmakers

    323
    and the British Horseracing Board—to advance their already well-progressed discussions and reach an early conclusion on how the money should be distributed for the benefit of racing and bookmakers?
    Mr. Waldegrave: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he has said. We hope to help to broker such an agreement and to reach an agreement fairly soon. It would be sensible to achieve such an agreement.

    Greenbury Report
    Mr. Hain: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received on the Greenbury report. [7081]
    Mr. Jack: Since the publication of the report my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has received a number of representations, both written and oral.
    Mr. Hain: Surely there is a strong case for legislation to implement the proposals of the Greenbury report, not least because more than half the electricity companies are being taken over and will therefore not be listed on the stock exchange in the near future. Are the Government selling out to private greed yet again?
    Mr. Jack: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman asks that question. It shows that there is a fundamental distrust among Opposition Members and doubt as to whether private industry can put its own House in order in relation to the matters discussed by Greenbury. The hon. Gentleman will know that, in his report, Sir Richard stated that he felt that legislation was an inappropriate way of dealing with the problem. The hon. Gentleman will also know that the stock exchange responded with commendable speed to change the listing arrangements on disclosure, particularly of salary. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has said that a review will take place—when the pensions aspects of the Greenbury report have been studied—with a view to amending the Companies Act, where necessary, where it relates to disclosure.
    Mr. Thomason: Does my hon. Friend welcome the extension of share ownership and responsible share option agreements? Does he agree that the Government should be proud of their record of extending share ownership from 3 million to 10 million people since 1979? Does he agree that that is the best way of ensuring that people have a stakeholding in this country?
    Mr. Jack: My hon. Friend has put his finger on what real stakeholding is about: having a share of something of which one is a part. That achievement has been made possible in the face of fearsome opposition from the Opposition. The Greenbury report occasioned a thorough debate involving my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor, who was able to announce in the Budget the new company share option scheme and enhancement of the profit-sharing and save-as-you-earn schemes which currently benefit 2 million people. I have no doubt that there will be a wide uptake in British industry of further opportunities so that employees can have a stake in the companies for which they work.
    Mr. Darling: The Financial Secretary seems to place a good deal of faith in the privatised utilities putting their own house in order. That faith is not shared by the
    324
    majority of people. Is he aware that the abuses in the boardrooms of privatised utilities are continuing? Is he also aware that the chairman of the National Association of Pension Funds investment committee—who is himself a member of the Greenbury committee—has warned that powerful voices are trying to block and wreck the Greenbury proposals? Will he give a guarantee that the Government will introduce legislation at the earliest possible opportunity to ensure that the subject of contributions to the pension arrangements of people in boardrooms is brought forward without further delay? Will he also give a guarantee that he will not allow the thrust of the Greenbury report to be wrecked by vested interests in the privatised utilities?
    Mr. Jack: Again, Opposition Front Benchers display a fundamental distrust of the idea of private companies being able to put matters right. The hon. Gentleman's attack on the privatised utilities is a typical smokescreen behind which the Opposition hide the many benefits that privatisation has brought to consumers. Many of the privatised companies have given clear public undertakings that they will accept the Greenbury recommendations and are moving towards them. If the hon. Gentleman considers the facts—clearly his boardroom lunches have not enabled him to do so—he will see that the Institute of Actuaries has been engaged by the stock exchange to work out, in consultation, how the issue of pensions and their benefit to directors should be properly valued. Once that exercise has been completed in June this year, the information will go to the revised listing arrangements and, as I said a moment ago, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry will look at ways of changing the Companies Act, if appropriate, to enable matters of disclosure to be dealt with properly.

    Living Standards
    Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the prospects for living standards in 1996. [7083]
    Mr. Jack: Real personal disposable income is expected to rise by 2.75 per cent. in 1996. A family on average earnings should be about £450 better off next year after tax and inflation.
    Mr. Greenway: I thank my hon. Friend. Does he agree that living standards have risen at least 10 times faster under the present Government than under their miserable predecessors, the Labour Government? Does he further agree that, in the stakeholder society proposed by the Labour party, people's income, or at least part of it, would be confiscated, as would part of the employers' outgoings and we would have a "Whitehall knows best" job at the worst time?
    Mr. Jack: My hon. Friend is an astute observer of the scene. He will certainly know that since the Conservative party took office the average family on average earnings has been £4,500 a year better off as a result of our policies. The stakeholder society strikes me as the equivalent of stir-fried politics—a bit of this and a bit of that, all mixed up with no recipe. It resembles today's special—here today, gone tomorrow.
    Mr. Sheerman: What effect will the disgraceful 7 per cent. Budget cut in university funding have on living standards? Is it not a disgrace to cut funding to

    325
    universities by 7 per cent., with all the knock-on effects not only on teaching and research but on the innovation and enterprise in which universities are becoming increasingly involved?
    Mr. Jack: I am not certain whether that question has the approval of the shadow Chief Secretary and his agreement that Labour would immediately restore the position. I shall tell the hon. Gentleman what has happened in terms of ensuring that universities can continue to offer the excellence of their facilities to more and more students occasioned by our education policies. They have taken a tremendous interest in the private finance initiative and I have no doubt whatever that they will use that as a good source of funding to continue the expansion of that vital work.
    Mr. Riddick: Are not prospects for living standards much more positive in the United Kingdom than in the rest of Europe? For example, this morning's Daily Telegraph forecasts that unemployment in Germany will reach more than 4 million this month and quotes German employers as being angry with the German Government for not introducing more flexibility into the work force. Does not the Labour party want to take Britain down the German road of over-regulation, minimum wages and the social chapter which will produce unemployment of more than 4 million in Germany? Does not Germany also want to take Britain down that road?
    Mr. Jack: My hon. Friend highlights some of the important issues that make Britain an ever-improving place to do business. We are competitive, our costs are low, we are not wedded to the social chapter and, according to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, we will outstrip Germany and France in growth next year. Those factors will lead to further reductions in unemployment and the improvement in living standards predicated by my right hon. and learned Friend's Budget.

    Budget (Industry)
    Mr. Jim Marshall: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations have been made to him by industry on his Budget. [7084]
    Mr. Waldegrave: Industry has welcomed the Budget because it recognises that it gives Britain the best chance of steady growth with low inflation.
    Mr. Marshall: That is a typically bullish reply by the Chief Secretary. How does he square that bullish response with a real economic indicator such as manufacturing output, which has shown an increase of less than 1 per cent. over the past 12 months?
    Mr. Waldegrave: Manufacturing output is up, as is manufacturing investment. The hon. Gentleman asked me what the response from industry was to the Budget, so I gave it. The director general of the CBI said:
    "We welcome the fact that Government has broadly stuck to the prudent economic line we recommended".
    Sir John Banham of Tarmac said:
    "The Chancellor is on the right track".
    I could give the hon. Gentleman a dozen other quotations. He asked a question, he got an answer and he did not like it.
    Mr. Gallie: Has my hon. Friend considered what an income tax increase of 3p in the pound for people in Scotland would do to industry? What effect would such an increase have on wage bills and on industrial development?
    Mr. Waldegrave: I think that the answer is obvious: jobs would be lost in Scotland and the high road from Scotland to England would have many more Scots on it, to the great benefit of England. It would prove very destructive to the Scottish economy and it would benefit all Scotland's neighbours.
    Mr. McAvoy: Can the Minister answer the complaint by the Federation of Small Businesses about the absence of any measures to tackle the problems of late payment which affects British industry? If he has received any representations from that organisation, will he ensure that his Department—which has a disgraceful record of late payments—increases its efficiency in paying its bills?
    Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. My Department's performance was not good enough about a year ago. I am happy to say that since August last year it has improved and it is now making just under 90 per cent. of payments within the time allowed. My Department's performance was not satisfactory a year ago and we shall see that it improves.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Mike O'Brien: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 11 January. [7106]
    The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Michael Heseltine): I have been asked to reply.
    My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is in Paris representing Her Majesty's Government at the commemorative service for the late President Mitterrand.
    Mr. O'Brien: Tonight's speech by Baroness Thatcher is set against the background of her well-known opposition to a single currency. As the one who wielded the knife that did her in, will the Deputy Prime Minister take this opportunity to reassert the Prime Minister's view that Britain should be at the heart of Europe, and his own stated view that there can be no truly unified single market without a single currency?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: The whole House understands that there is a massive national self-interest in our policies in Europe. The purpose of our presence in Europe is to fight for British self-interest. That was very much the view of my right hon. Friend Lady Thatcher and it is the view of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. Each of us does it in his own way and in his own context.
    Mr. Stephen: Has my right hon. Friend received his £50 electricity rebate? Does he agree that the family silver is still there and that it is working for us better than ever, that millions of people have been turned into stakeholders and that the money that they have paid the Government for their shares has been invested in hospitals, schools, transport and in many other essential services?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend. I share his anticipation and that of the electricity consumers of this country that their average bill will be £90 less next year than it would have been otherwise.
    Mr. Prescott: Will the Deputy Prime Minister comment on today's damning report from the British Medical Association which says that patients' lives are being put at risk because of the crisis in the provision of acute hospital beds in our country?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for raising that very important issue. The fact is that there has been an increase in the number of emergency and accident admissions to hospitals in some parts of the country. The increase is not universal, as there has actually been a decrease in some areas.
    However, this is obviously a matter of concern for the Government. It is being examined by the chief medical officer and the Government are determined to see that all proper steps will be pursued in terms of the improved management of bed utilisation which has flowed from the immensely more sophisticated treatment that is now available. We are determined to preserve the reputation of the health service as one of the most important aspects of public service.
    Mr. Prescott: Even so, is it not true that yesterday an elderly man who had suffered a heart attack died because none of the 12 Yorkshire hospitals could admit him owing to a shortage of beds? Is it any wonder when one looks at how the money is spent by the Government? They have spent an extra £1 billion on bureaucracy and an extra £25 million on company cars, the number of accountants has doubled, and the number of managers has increased from 500 to 20,000—while they have cut the numbers of beds and nurses. Is that not the real reason why there is a crisis in the national health service?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: The whole House is deeply preoccupied with the standards of the health service and with ensuring that they are maintained. It does no service at all to people who are sick or elderly to raise concerns and fears in the way that the right hon. Gentleman has done. Since 1948, the number of beds in the national health service has been falling under all Governments. One of the reasons why that has been happening is that today patients spend less time in hospital, because the means of treating them enable a speedier recuperative process.
    I can reassure the House that, since our reforms of the health service were put in place, 1.5 million more patients have been treated every year. That is the fact that the patients of this country should hear, because it is the reassurance to which they are entitled.
    Mr. Prescott: Why is it that the Deputy Prime Minister will not admit what everyone knows—the Government are destroying one of our greatest assets? They are destroying the national health service, which was given to the nation by a Labour Government and opposed tooth and nail by the Tories.
    The Deputy Prime Minister: The reason why I will not say it is that it is not true. The fact is that we are treating more patients and building more hospitals, the queues are coming down and the health service is safe with the Conservative party.
    Mr. Jessel: On the subject of hospital accident and emergency admissions, is my right hon. Friend aware that at West Middlesex hospital, which I visited at 11 o'clock last night, staff told me that on 30 December, the day of black ice, they had admitted 60 fracture cases compared with the normal daily total of 10? That is bound to have a knock-on effect for the next week or two when taken with the increase in asthma cases this winter. However, the staff are working hard, their morale is good and they should be warmly commended.
    The Deputy Prime Minister: My hon. Friend raises a most important point. There is no question whatever about the dedication of the staff in the health service and their ability to cope with those problems. Nor is there any universal agreement as to the causes of the increase in the number of admissions. The BMA and the chief medical officer are looking closely at the problem. It is a matter for concern, and it will remain so until it has been dealt with.
    Mr. Pike: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 11 January. [7107]
    The Deputy Prime Minister: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Pike: The Deputy Prime Minister will recall that Tuesday of this week marked the 10th anniversary of the day on which he marched out of Baroness Thatcher's Cabinet. In view of her much trailed speech tonight, can the Deputy Prime Minister tell the House and the nation why, in 1990, he considered that it was essential that she be removed from office?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: The whole House will know that after leaving Baroness Thatcher's Government I did all in my power to secure her re-election. [Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order.
    The Deputy Prime Minister: As I look back on a long life of public service, I regard the fact that I played such a conspicuous role in the 1987 general election campaign, in which Baroness Thatcher was re-elected, as no mean achievement.
    Sir Colin Shepherd: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 11 January. [7109]
    The Deputy Prime Minister: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave some moments ago.
    Sir Colin Shepherd: Has my right hon. Friend yet had the chance to give careful consideration to the speech made by the Leader of the Opposition in Singapore? If so, has he yet been able to figure out just what a stakeholder economy is?
    Mr. Skinner: Mine's a sirloin.
    The Deputy Prime Minister: How typical of the hon. Member for Bolsover to choose one of the most expensive and luxurious parts of the animal. At least he has the advantage of having found an answer to the question—which is more than his hon. Friend the

    329
    Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) succeeded in doing. According to The Guardian this morning, when asked much the same question he had this to say:
    "It's warm words time again. I haven't a clue what it means. If anyone does could they let me know?"
    If I may trespass on the time of the House, I shall explain what it means. The stakeholders that the Labour party would bring back are all our old familiar Labour friends—the unions, the single-issue pressure groups, the local authorities and the co-operatives. A stakeholder society in a Conservative world, on the other hand, is all about home owners, share owners, pension owners, choice, freedom and a competitive society.
    Mr. Gunnell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 11 January. [7110]
    The Deputy Prime Minister: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Gunnell: Further to the Deputy Prime Minister's replies on the question of the elderly man from Bradford who died while waiting for a hospital bed, is he aware that the admitting consultant at the intensive care unit in Leeds general infirmary described the case as just the tip of an iceberg, and said that there were hundreds of such cases? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with the Yorkshire Evening Post that that is a disgrace? What is he going to do about it?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: I have tried, when answering questions similar to the one put to me by the hon. Gentleman, to express the concern of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health, who shares the anxieties of all hon. Members and the wider community. These are regrettable individual cases; they evoke nothing but sympathy from everyone involved. But it is quite wrong to believe that they are typical of the treatment that people can expect from the health service. It does this House no good in the public's esteem to try to undermine the high reputation enjoyed by the health service.
    Mr. Garnier: Will my right hon. Friend take an early opportunity to come to Leicestershire—and my constituency in particular—where he will see a growing economy, falling unemployment and increasing confidence? All those things are a direct consequence of the Government's economic policies. Will he come to Market Harborough and the constituency generally to make sure that that message gets home even more loudly than hitherto?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: My hon. and learned Friend is absolutely right. The fact is that we have one of the fastest growing economies in western Europe. Unemployment has been falling for 27 months. Our inward investment is growing, and all we must ensure to keep it going is that the Government remain in charge of managing the economy.
    Mr. Malcolm Bruce: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 11 January. [7111]
    The Deputy Prime Minister: I have been asked to reply.
    330
    I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Bruce: I wonder whether the Deputy Prime Minister would like to comment on today's opinion poll in The Guardian showing a six-point drop in Conservative support and a corresponding six-point increase in Liberal Democrat support. That could of course be explained by the decision of my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon (Miss Nicholson). May I just point out that if that effect is repeated every time a Tory crosses the Floor to our Benches, after four more defections we will lead both Labour and the Tories?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: I do not find it greatly surprising that the hon. Gentleman should seek to draw our attention to the views of the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon. I find the views that she expressed in June this year slightly more reassuring:
    "In troubled times such as we are experiencing at present when we have been wrongly assaulted for our Government's many fine achievements by an irresponsible press, our task is to stick together. Those old Conservative virtues of loyalty, thrift, hard work and vision must be our priorities whenever we are under fire."
    The hon. Lady was right then.
    Mr. Stewart: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 11 January. [7112]
    The Deputy Prime Minister: I have been asked to reply.
    I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Stewart: Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to underline the success and importance of inward investment into the United Kingdom, especially into Scotland—[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. Let us have a little less noise on the Government Benches below the gangway. Mr. Stewart, repeat your question. I could not hear because of the noisy ones there.
    Mr. Stewart: Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to underline both the success and importance of inward investment in this country? What would be the impact of inward investment in Scotland if people who work in Scotland were subject, uniquely in Europe, to the imposition of the iniquitous tartan tax?
    The Deputy Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is right to draw this matter to the attention of the House and of Scottish people in particular. Under the excellent conditions that the Government have created, 100 inward investment projects, worth more than £1 billion and creating or protecting some 12,000 jobs in 1994–95, were delivered to Scotland in that one year alone. There is no question but that the only thing that would flow from the introduction of a Labour Government and the consequent establishment of a tartan tax would be that inward investment, flowing not to Scotland but to England, Wales and Northern Ireland. That would be good news for everyone except the Scots.

Asylum Seekers (Benefits)
3.31 pm
The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Peter Lilley): With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the regulations to reform benefit arrangements for asylum seekers, sponsored immigrants and others. I have today laid before the House the regulations together with the accompanying Command Paper.
The aim of these reforms, together with the measures in the Asylum and Immigration Bill, are to ensure that the United Kingdom remains a safe haven for those genuinely fleeing persecution; to deal more speedily with their claims; and to discourage unfounded claims from people who are actually economic migrants.
Of course genuine refugees come to the United Kingdom to escape persecution, not to obtain our benefits. Their rights to asylum will not be altered in any way, and anyone who arrives here as a refugee and seeks asylum at the port of entry will continue to have access to benefits while their claim is considered by the Home Office.
More than 90 per cent. of people claiming asylum, however, are eventually found not to be genuine refugees. The vast majority of asylum claimants are economic migrants. The number who come here is influenced by the ready availability of benefits. Relative to Britain, other European countries offer less generous benefits and less opportunity for work and have tightened up the procedures applying to asylum seekers. As a result, since 1993 the number of asylum claims in western Europe as a whole has fallen by more than a third, yet in Britain it has doubled.
Consequently the proportion of all asylum seekers in Europe who come to Britain has more than trebled in the past decade. The huge number of unfounded applications means that the tiny proportion of claimants who are genuine face an unnecessarily long process. The total cost of social security benefits alone for asylum seekers already exceeds £200 million a year, yet more than 90 per cent. of that money goes to people who are not genuine refugees. No responsible Government could ignore that growing misuse of taxpayers' money.
One way to address the problem is to speed up the processing of asylum claims. The revised procedures in the Asylum and Immigration Bill will speed up the processing of claims. But it is crucial that the new procedures are not in turn overwhelmed by a rising tide of unfounded claims. So benefit changes are essential to discourage unfounded claims.
Under the new benefit regulations, those who enter the country as refugees, declaring themselves to be asylum seekers at the port of entry, will still be entitled to claim benefit while the Home Office deals with their claim. So will those who claim after entering the country as visitors, if there has been a significant upheaval in their homeland since their arrival. But at present some 70 per cent. of all asylum claims are made by people who entered the United Kingdom as tourists, students or business men. As such, they demonstrated that they had the means to support themselves while they were here and accepted that they would not be entitled to claim benefit. Yet, under current rules, when they subsequently apply for asylum, they become entitled to benefit. We propose to end entitlement
332
to benefit for those who entered the country saying that they were not here to seek asylum but subsequently changed their story. From now on, there will be no benefits for those who misrepresent their case.
British citizens do not receive a benefit while appealing against refusal. Successive Governments have upheld that policy, or every unsuccessful British benefit claimant would have an incentive to appeal against refusal of his or her benefit. However, under the present rules, asylum seekers are allowed to retain benefit during an appeal. Not surprisingly, the vast majority of asylum seekers appeal against rejection. Yet 96 per cent. of their appeals turn out to be unfounded. I therefore propose that once an asylum seeker's claim has been considered and rejected, entitlement to benefit will cease. They will no longer be able to prolong entitlement to benefit by appealing against refusal of refugee status. In that respect, asylum seekers will, in future, be treated in the same way as United Kingdom citizens whose claims for benefit are refused.
Particular concern has been expressed at the prospect of large numbers of asylum seekers losing entitlement on the day when the new arrangements come into force. Of course, I understand those concerns. When the proposals were announced last October, there was an obvious danger of a surge of pre-emptive claims during the consultation period to get on to benefit before the new regulations came into effect. To discourage that, we announced that those who made in-country claims or appeals after 11 October would lose benefit entitlement once the regulations took place. That announcement seems to have dampened the surge of pre-emptive claims. I have taken note of concerns about handling a large number of benefit terminations simultaneously and the transitional impact that it would have on local authority finances. I have therefore decided to amend the transitional arrangements significantly. No one will now lose benefit when the new regulations come into effect on 5 February.
The 13,000 or more asylum seekers who have made in-country claims or appeals since 12 October and are receiving income support, housing benefit or council tax benefit will continue to get benefit unless or until their claim or appeal is subsequently rejected. That transitional protection will substantially reduce the potential impact on local authorities.
However, the Government also propose to assist local authorities with any unavoidable additional costs arising under homelessness legislation or the Children Act 1989. My right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Health and for the Environment will discuss the details with local authority associations shortly. I believe that this fully meets the most pressing concerns put to the Government by the Social Security Advisory Committee and local authorities. Taken together with measures proposed in the Asylum and Immigration Bill and further work between my Department and the Home Office on improving asylum decision times and priority setting, these changes will make a significant contribution to addressing the problem of bogus asylum seekers.
The Government further propose that people from abroad whose leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom is subject to some limit or condition—for example, that they should not have recourse to public funds—should be excluded from non-contributory benefits. That will bring these benefits into line with exclusions which already apply under income support, housing benefit and council tax benefit rules.

333
The arrangement whereby people are allowed into this country on the understanding that a sponsor has promised to support them, has been widely abused. Nearly half the sponsors renege on those agreements. The regulations will hold sponsors to their agreements and benefits will become payable only if the sponsor dies or the sponsorship agreement breaks down after five years. Finally, the Government propose to amend the arrangements to remove the Secretary of State's discretion to make interim payments in some circumstances.
No responsible Government could fail to tackle a situation where well over 90 per cent. of benefit is not going to genuine refugees. These reforms will ensure that the United Kingdom remains a safe haven for genuine refugees. They will help to deal with their claims faster and they will discourage bogus claimants who are bettering themselves at the taxpayers' expense. The changes that I have made will end concerns over the transitional arrangements, alleviate burdens on local authorities and protect the British taxpayer. I believe that the measures are both fair and necessary and I commend them to the House.
Mr. Keith Bradley: Is it not clear that the Secretary of State's statement is further evidence of the harshness of his Administration? Why did the Government not listen to the views of all the groups with an interest in the subject, such as immigration welfare agencies, the churches and local authorities throughout Britain, who urged them not to start down this road?
The Opposition clearly support proper measures to stop fraudulent asylum applications, but surely tackling the appalling administrative delays in the procedures would be far more effective than this indiscriminate attack on applicants?
The Opposition welcome some of the changes that have been forced on the Secretary of State, but a number of issues still require clarification today and I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman a number of questions.
First, the right hon. Gentleman, in his statement, claims that 90 per cent. of all applicants are not genuine. However, the Government's own figures show that 23 per cent. of applicants are either granted refugee status on conventional grounds or are granted exceptional leave to remain. Does the right hon. Gentleman accept the Government's own figures in that respect?
Secondly, what are the implications for parliamentary democracy of the right hon. Gentleman's authorisation of letters to asylum seekers telling them that their benefits will be cut off on 8 January this year? Does not that show that the right hon. Gentleman expected to push the proposals straight through the House without any parliamentary scrutiny?
Why did the right hon. Gentleman originally set a timetable of only 21 statutory days between laying the regulations and their coming into force, when 18 of those days were during the Christmas and new year recess with no opportunity for hon. Members to comment effectively on the draft regulations?
Why was the Social Security Advisory Committee given only one month to consult on those vital changes when its usual period of consultation is considerably longer than that? Why has the right hon. Gentleman not waited, as he has been asked to do by many hon.
334
Members, to have sight of the report of the Select Committee on Social Security, which is currently holding an inquiry into the proposed changes? Would it not have been better to have the benefit of the evidence that was to be put before that Committee?
Has the right hon. Gentleman seen the evidence of his own officials, who, when summoned before the Committee and asked how they expected asylum seekers to survive after 8 January—the original date of implementation—were quite unable to answer, merely replying that
"Ministers believe that in reality the majority of claims are unfounded."
How will people manage in that situation?
What consideration has been given to representations to the Social Security Advisory Committee that the distinction between port and in-country applications is an artificial one? What assessment has the right hon. Gentleman made of the evidence from various refugee organisations that there are good reasons why many applicants do not claim asylum until after they have entered the country, such as having a well-founded fear of officialdom, wishing to seek an interpreter or legal advice, or wishing to make contact with family and friends to give them support when they make the application?
Is the Secretary of State aware that, when the then Home Secretary introduced the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993, he fully anticipated a rise in the number of applications and set a three-month limit for decisions on those applications, but, owing to Home Office incompetence, the average waiting time is 19 months? Does not that backlog mean that asylum seekers who are unable to find work or alternative sources of funding will be unable to survive for such long periods without the support of the social security system?
Will the Secretary of State confirm that, following the revision of the original regulations, the expected savings are still an estimated £200 million? Will not they be offset, however, by the appalling additional cost to local authorities of, for instance, having to take children into care? Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that authorities will receive a 100 per cent. reimbursement of those costs?
Why did the Secretary of State not wait for the outcome of the judicial review sought by the London boroughs of Westminster and Wandsworth—Tory flagships, I believe? What consideration has he given to the remarks of his former Cabinet colleague, the right hon. Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke), in his support for the Westminster application? Should not the Home Secretary accept amendments to the Asylum and Immigration Bill—currently in Committee—which gives the power to deny child benefit to hundreds of thousands of people who are lawfully settled in this country?
Why did not the Secretary of State accept the firm and overriding conclusion of his own Social Security Advisory Committee that the proposals should not be proceeded with? I assure the right hon. Gentleman that we shall continue to oppose them vigorously in debate, and ask him to confirm that he will honour the commitment to allow a full debate in the House before

335
the proposals are implemented. Opposition Members wish to ensure that we afford full protection to genuine asylum seekers.
Mr. Lilley: The Opposition's response reveals that they have not changed an iota. They still oppose every measure that is intended to ensure that money is put to good use, and goes to those who are genuinely entitled to it rather than those who are not.
The hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley) said that the proposals were harsh. In many respects, however, they simply put asylum seekers on the same footing as British citizens, and endorse rules that have been endorsed by Labour Governments for British citizens. If the hon. Gentleman considers that harsh, he should have opposed his own Government.
The hon. Gentleman believes that the Labour party would support proper measures to deal with the problems, but has suggested no such measures, and no way of ensuring the making of savings and proper direction of the £200 million that will be saved. Labour has opposed every change and improvement in the treatment of asylum seekers made by the Government over the past 15 years.
The hon. Gentleman asked why I had said that more than 90 per cent. of claims were not from genuine refugees. That was the finding of Home Office investigations and the subsequent reviews carried out by judicial adjudicators. We grant exceptional leave to remain, but that does not mean that the people involved are refugees; such leave may be given for humanitarian reasons—because someone is ill, or has suffered a mishap since entering the country. A person may be allowed to remain here temporarily, although the circumstances—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) would do well to listen to my answer, rather than nattering on about matters that he manifestly does not understand. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman clearly does not understand the difference between exceptional leave to remain, granted by the Government—[Interruption.]
Madam Speaker: Order. The Minister is attempting to answer questions. If the hon. Member for Blackburn wishes to ask a question I shall look his way later.
Mr. Lilley: The hon. Member for Blackburn does not know the difference between exceptional leave to remain and refugee status under the international United Nations convention, which is a different matter.
The hon. Member for Withington also asked why the original suggestion was that the regulations should come in on 8 January. That was the earliest date that they could be introduced, given the statutory consultation period. We said before the recess that we would allow time for debate, and time has been put aside for debate over the next 21 days, before the regulations come into force on 5 February. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would welcome that rather than showing a grudging attitude towards it.
The hon. Gentleman said that the distinction between those who claim at the port and those who claim subsequently within this country, having entered as visitors, tourists or business people and then changed their story, is artificial. Most of us think that if people have
336
been asked at the port for their reasons for coming to the country and have said that they are coming here as tourists, business people, visitors or students, demonstrated that they have the means to support themselves during the period of their stay here, and accepted that they will not be a burden on public funds, but subsequently, after entry, change their story, albeit after talking to legal advisers who may suggest that they change it, it is not artificial to prevent them from being treated on the same basis as those who honestly arrive as refugees and claim at the port of entry.
I confirm that the long-term savings should be of the order of £200 million. Of course there will be an impact because of the transitional measures that we have announced, and the costs of helping local authorities remain to be determined. However, we do not think that those will be nearly as large as some alarmist suggestions would have us believe, because there will also be savings to local authorities because of the reduced flow of asylum seekers that will result from the discouraging effect on bogus claims of the measures that we have introduced.
It would have been foolish for us to wait until the end of the judicial review sought by Westminster council, because one of the reasons for the review was that the council did not know the outcome of the consultation process. We have now announced the outcome, and I believe that it will be satisfactory to boroughs in London and elsewhere that have problems in that respect. I believe that the measures in general show that we have thoroughly considered the representations made during the consultation period both by concerned lobbies and by local authorities, and have fully met the most serious concerns that they expressed.
None the less, the basic question remains: how could any Government not tackle a situation in which we are paying out more than £200 million, 90 per cent. of which goes to people who are subsequently found not to be genuine refugees?
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. After that initial Front-Bench exchange, which has taken about 20 minutes, I now insist on brisk questions and answers. If Members seek to put questions they must be brisk and to the point, and I want the answers likewise.
Sir Jim Lester: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for the fact that the Government have considered the widespread concerns of many Conservative Members and of many other people. He has responded to those concerns by dealing with the worst situation that many of us envisaged, and I assure him that what he has done will be helpful, bearing in mind what we foresaw might have happened. I still believe that we should shorten the time taken for appeals, and I ask my right hon. Friend to re-examine the position of people who apply for asylum within a short time of coming into the country. I do not mean the people whom my right hon. Friend described, but there is evidence that many genuine asylum seekers apply within two weeks of arrival.
Mr. Lilley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his support for the changes that we have introduced, as a result of discussions, not least those that I have had with him over the past few months. I believe that those changes meet the greatest concerns about the transitional period,

337
but I agree that we must do all in our power to shorten the time taken to assess claims and appeals. As for people who make claims within a short time after entering the country, close inspection of the figures shows that the case for a change is much weaker than some lobbyists have suggested. It would be difficult to make a change in such a way that it did not validate those who have entered the country with one story but have subsequently changed it, in a way that most people would not think should be a justification for receiving benefit. That is especially so in view of the fact that all such people will have demonstrated that they had the means to support themselves, and they should be held to that statement and that promise.
Ms Liz Lynne: Is it right that persecuted people should now become homeless and destitute? A number of genuine asylum seekers who apply in-country have been tortured. Should not they be treated with compassion, and not kicked in the teeth? What assessment has the Secretary of State made of the number of children who will have to be taken into care under the Children Act? What will be the cost of that to the public purse? Will he guarantee that we will have a full debate on the matter on the Floor of the House? Will he take note of what his own advisory committee said and withdraw the regulations?
Mr. Lilley: The hon. Lady's contribution was characteristically emotive and irresponsible. While this is an emotional subject, it is not a matter on which one should be emotive, which means stirring up unjustified emotion. Of course there is at present a burden on some local authorities and others who care for children, including children who are sent unaccompanied to this country. For the latter group, the changes that I have announced today will make no difference. There is no reason why there should be any increased cost as a result of these responsibilities, nor would local authorities be obliged to take children into care. They must only see that the children are cared for, as is presently the case.
Mr. Peter Brooke: May I express my appreciation to my right hon. Friend for the manner in which he has responded to the representations that have been made to him? Does he accept that while the negotiations with the local authority associations are continuing, the devil will remain in the small print? Does he further accept that nothing could do more harm in terms of relations between the host community and asylum seekers than the cost simply being transferred to council tax payers?
Mr. Lilley: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his support for the changes that we have introduced. I hope that they will meet the needs and concerns of boroughs and local authorities in areas where there are concentrations of asylum seekers. It will be important to get the details right, but we will be aiming to offer a significant contribution where there are additional unavoidable costs arising from the changes for local authorities. We have significantly reduced the extent of such costs by the transitional measures that I have announced.
Mr. Frank Field: Does the Secretary of State recall the evidence given by anti-fraud officers which suggested that many of these claims were not made by asylum seekers—bogus or otherwise—but by gangs
338
working the social security system? Will he report to the House on the steps he intends to take to counter such benefit fraud before the House votes on the regulations so that we can see the extent of claims that have arisen because of people wrongly claiming benefit?
Mr. Lilley: There can of course be cases of fraud of the type that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned, and we introduced fingerprinting to make that much more difficult. We believe that that has largely eliminated the problem. The amount concerned is a minute fraction of the hundreds of millions of pounds we are talking about today. That money is going to people who are genuinely from abroad but are not genuine asylum seekers and who have come here as economic migrants. I believe that it is right to tackle these problems. I remind the hon. Gentleman that his party strongly opposed the introduction of fingerprinting for asylum seekers, a measure which has enabled us to tackle and largely eliminate the very fraud to which he refers.
Sir Nicholas Scott: In terms of recompensing local authorities which have to bear the burden of expenditure resulting from both homelessness and the provisions of the Children Act, is it not the case that not only will authorities be recompensed for future expenditure but for backdated costs which they have already borne?
Mr. Lilley: I am not certain that there are any costs of the kind my right hon. Friend suggests, but he is a distinguished former Social Security Minister and I would not give a 100 per cent. guarantee on that. I shall certainly look at the point that he has made. We believe that the problem of people who would have lost benefit on the day the regulations came into force has been eliminated by the new transitional arrangements. Therefore, it is only to the extent that the problem is on-going that any costs can arise. We will be seeking to assess with local authorities the extent of additional and unavoidable costs arising from that.
Ms Diane Abbott: Does the Secretary of State accept that the many hundreds of thousands of refugees and asylum seekers who were genuinely worried and frightened by his original proposals will be relieved at his partial backdown this afternoon? Will he take the opportunity to talk to his colleagues in the Home Office, and assure them that it is not too late to reconsider the Asylum and Immigration Bill? That legislation—like his original proposals for change in the regulations—is brutal, ill-thought-out and unworkable, and it will impact harshly on people who are resident in this country whose skins happen to be a different colour from his own.
Mr. Lilley: It is wrong of the hon. Lady to suggest that anything in the measures or in the Asylum and Immigration Bill is based on race or will treat people of different colour in any different way. Part of the problem that we face now is an upsurge in the flow of economic migrants from eastern Europe. That migration is hard to justify on any conceivable grounds of refugee status, and that is why we are tackling the problem.
I hope that the hon. Lady will withdraw her remarks and not seek to exacerbate tensions between communities. One of the intentions of good asylum control is to cement and harmonise those relations.
Sir Patrick Cormack: I thank my right hon. Friend for responding as he has, but could

339
he clarify one point in his statement? Did he say that he would remove the Secretary of State's discretionary powers? If that is the case, could he explain why?
Mr. Lilley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his support. The proposal to which he refers gives a discretionary power to the Secretary of State, or those acting on his behalf, to give interim benefit payments in cases in which it is known that an individual has an entitlement to benefit, but the amount of the benefit has not yet been calculated. The way in which the rules are framed suggests that the Secretary of State may have discretion to give benefit where an appeal is going on, but it is not known whether the person has an entitlement to benefit. We are trying to eliminate that uncertainty so that only in cases in which entitlement to benefit, but not the amount, has been established can the Secretary of State authorise an interim payment to enable the person to get by.
Mr. Tony Banks: I welcome the statement because it moves the line; however, it does not change the principle. The Secretary of State said that extra support would be made available to local authorities. Will the additional support be ring-fenced? If a local authority, for example, was spending at or above its standard spending assessment, would the additional support be on top of its SSA? It is in areas such as mine in the east end where this proposal will have its greatest impact.
Mr. Lilley: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his welcome for the changes, which is unique among Opposition Members. I have said that there will be discussions between my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment and the local authorities about the treatment of local authorities. I hesitate to pre-empt any arcane implications that those discussions might have for the complex and, to me, nearly incomprehensible financial arrangements which exist for local authorities.
The intention, however, is to provide a significant degree of help in cases in which there is additional and unavoidable cost—which will be monitored and, by implication, measured ex post facto rather than doled out through the normal SSA system.
Mr. James Couchman: May I welcome the transitional arrangements that my right hon. Friend has announced today? I welcome the fact that he proposes to continue allowing benefit to people who seek asylum when they first make UK landfall at a port of entry. Will he confirm to the House that his proposals are fully in accordance with international law on those points?
Mr. Lilley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his support. I can confirm that we have taken full advice to ensure that what we do is in accordance with the letter and the spirit of international law.
Mr. Bernie Grant: I welcome the Minister's change of heart in relation to some of the regulations, but he has not gone far enough. Will he take this opportunity to make a public apology to those asylum seekers in my constituency who were written to by officials in his Department before Christmas to tell them, illegally, that their benefits would be withdrawn on 8 January? He has written to me about it but has not made a public statement. Could he do so and also say what will
340
happen to asylum seekers whose appeals have been turned down and who are waiting to leave the country? How will they live and what is going to be done with those people and their children?
Mr. Lilley: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his welcome for the changes. They are not, of course, in any way a reversal, but to avoid an upsurge of claims it was essential to announce, as we did, the impact that would be made by the changes on those who made claims in the interim. That has served its purpose. It is now possible the amend the regulations to ensure that there is no withdrawal of benefit from anybody when they come into force.
As for the issue about which I have written to the hon. Gentleman, where people were prematurely given an indication of the date on which the regulations might have come into force, I am glad that he has made his letter public. Our regret that that premature statement was made is therefore already in the public domain. Of course, it was essential at some stage that people knew what the arrangements would be.
The hon. Gentleman asked what would happen at the end of the appeal stage when, having exhausted all their appeal rights, people are found not to be genuine claimants. At present, they lose the right to benefit and the right to work in this country. There will be no change in that. Of course, once they are found, having exhausted all appeal rights, not to be refugees and if they are not given exceptional leave to remain, they will be expected to return to their own countries.
Mr. Nicholas Baker: Does my right hon. Friend accept that our international obligations, as well as our duty to genuine refugees, demand that we reduce the magnet that the benefits and jobs available in this country currently provide? Is he aware that he will have the tacit support and understanding of many Government Ministers in African countries for doing precisely that? Is he aware that the current rising tide of unfounded applications for asylum is threatening good race relations in this country?
Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend's experience in this area gives authority to what he has just said and I entirely endorse it. The measures that we have taken are absolutely right and it would be grossly irresponsible, as the Opposition's position is grossly irresponsible, not to make any changes either to the asylum procedures under the Asylum and Immigration Bill or on the benefits side. They are effectively allowing thousands and thousands of people with unfounded asylum claims to block up the procedures and affecting those with genuine claims. We should put those with genuine claims first.
Mr. Neil Gerrard: The Secretary of State said that by taking away benefits while someone is waiting for an appeal, he is merely putting them on a par with any other person waiting for an appeal. Does he not understand that asylum seekers who wait for appeals may be without money for several months and may be forced, if they have no friends to support them, to go back to where they came from? People who might well have won appeals may end up going back to countries where they are in danger of being persecuted. Could he give an example of someone else waiting for an appeal who would be under the same sort of pressure?
Mr. Lilley: I endeavoured to explain to the House that the rules will be effectively identical for both British

341
citizens and asylum seekers. No other means of support is made available for people whose claims for income support, say, are rejected during the period in which they appeal against such decisions. I remind the hon. Gentleman that, in the case of asylum seekers, 96 per cent. of appeals are finally rejected.
Mr. David Shaw: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that nine out of 10 applications for asylum are ultimately turned down and that those people have been costing the country some £200 million? If that is the case, my constituents welcome the decision that he has announced today.
Mr. Lilley: I can confirm the figures that my hon. Friend has given. As he knows, the Opposition have pretended recently to be against the abuse of the welfare system. Of the benefits that go to domestic claimants, the most vulnerable benefits are subject to some 10 per cent. abuse, but at least 90 per cent. gets through to those who are genuinely entitled to it. In the case of benefits for asylum seekers, the proportions are reversed, yet the Labour party wants that position to remain unchanged.
Mrs. Maria Fyfe: Does the Secretary of State believe that no child will end up in care as a result of his disgraceful statement? If he does not, will he estimate how many children will end up in care?
Mr. Lilley: I have tried to explain that no change that I have announced today will affect the most heart-rending cases where children are sent to this country unaccompanied. As for children accompanied by families, it is open to local authorities to help the family look after its children. Local authorities are not required to take the children into care.
Mr. Robert G. Hughes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that his response on transitional relief, which will be warmly welcomed by any reasonable person, represents a response to the most persuasive evidence that was given in public to the Social Security Select Committee inquiry into this matter? Is not the lesson to be learnt that he has responded fully to those concerns because they were factually based, and those people who feel that they have not been responded to should think again about the emotive language and exaggeration that they use in putting forward their case?
Mr. Lilley: I entirely endorse the points that my hon. Friend has made, which are given greater authority by the fact that he has been chairing the sub-committee of the Select Committee investigating that matter. I naturally look forward to receiving his report as soon as it is available.
Ms Angela Eagle: If the evidence for those changes is so overwhelming, why did the Secretary of State's adviser, the Social Security Advisory Committee, in an unprecedented statement, say that it wanted the draft regulations completely withdrawn?
Mr. Lilley: It is far from unprecedented that the Social Security Advisory Committee, whose job is to consider and receive all the representations made following the Government's announcement of proposals for social security, should say that a proposal should be withdrawn. Those proposals invariably generate hostile representations. I have often been told to withdraw proposals before I have responded to the most serious and
342
poignant concerns that they raise. I remind the hon. Lady, however, that almost every other country in Europe has tightened up either on its procedures or benefits, or both. It is extraordinary that the Labour party should think that this country should take an ever-rising proportion of asylum claimants in western Europe. The number that we take has already quadrupled and the Labour party clearly wants our share to go up even more.
Mr. Peter Bottomley: May I anticipate the response of the church leaders in south-east London and say on their behalf that they will be grateful that the transitional arrangements have been modified? However, there remains the problem of the children of people who are unauthorised to be here but who have been here for more than five years, who are then sent away. This may be a Home Office issue. The real test is that people who come from abroad and change their stories will no longer be able to get the benefits that are denied to people in this country, who may be in an even worse position.
Mr. Lilley: I very much welcome the points that my hon. Friend made. He is right to say that there is a clear distinction between people who come to this country as refugees precisely because they trust this country and declare their claim for asylum at the port of entry, and those who tell the immigration authorities one story but subsequently change their story once they are in the country, having received advice that it may be in their interest and help to get benefits.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Will the Secretary of State confirm that the underlying principles of his draft order are totally unchanged and that it will simply happen further along the line? While those whose asylum applications have been refused legitimately wait for an appeal to have their cases reconsidered, they will be forced into destitution. The Secretary of State intended that to happen on 8 January but has been forced to put it back by a month.
Mr. Lilley: I do not often agree with the hon. Gentleman, but I respect his continuing concern about this issue and the consistency of his line on asylum seekers. He is right to say that, essentially, the change in the transitional arrangements means that no one will have benefit withdrawn on the day that the regulations come in but if, in future, they are found not to be genuine asylum seekers, they will lose benefit at that point. That seems reasonable and sensible, although alas it may not to the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. John Wilkinson: May I, as the Member who has the principal port of entry to the United Kingdom, Heathrow, in his borough, warmly commend my right hon. Friend for his clarity of mind, consistency of purpose and courage in tackling what, to my constituents, is obviously an abuse, which enables public funds to be disbursed to their disbenefit? May I also say that it is important, as local authority representatives from Hillingdon have made clear to the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, Central (Sir P. Beresford), that something be done to provide funding to accommodate the unaccompanied refugee children who continue to pour in through Heathrow?
Mr. Lilley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who rightly has specific constituency concerns about that issue.

343
I am glad that he welcomes the measures that we have introduced. I will convey the final argument that he made to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, but I believe that the changes that we have announced will mean that local authorities, and people with genuine anxieties about the transitional arrangements, have their concerns properly met. Like my hon. Friend, I believe that the vast majority of people in this country, whatever their colour or ethnic origin, will support those measures.
Ms Glenda Jackson: If these proposals are not withdrawn in their entirety, there will undoubtedly be additional responsibilities for all local authorities under the Housing Act 1985 and the Children Act. Will the Secretary of State give a figure for the amount of transitional relief and the length of time that that will run? My local authority, Camden, expects to be confronted with an increase of £4.6 million.
Mr. Lilley: I said in my statement that we would seek to help local authorities that have unavoidable additional expenditures. We believe that those expenditures will be far less than the number that the hon. Lady quoted, which ante-dates the change in the transitional arrangements, which has relieved local authorities of the prospect of the biggest potential impact on their budgets.
When the hon. Lady speaks about removing those measures in their entirety, she is saying that we should continue to spend £200 million, the vast bulk of it going to people who will be found not to be genuine asylum seekers. Where else in the welfare budget or the tax system do she and the Labour party propose to obtain £200 million? Will it come from genuine domestic claimants in order to be given to bogus asylum seekers?
Mr. Anthony Coombs: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the widespread abuse of our social security system by bogus asylum seekers is widely resented in this country and is bad for good community relations? In that context, is it not significant that Amnesty International has identified abuse of the asylum system as a significant and difficult problem, not only because of its effects on the taxpayer but because of the way in which it discriminates indirectly against genuine asylum seekers?
Mr. Lilley: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. He is right to quote Amnesty International, which did say that that is a genuine problem and, in so doing, rebutted effectively the arguments of Opposition Front Bench Members, who have tried to pretend that it is a non-problem.
Mr. Stephen Timms: The Secretary of State knows that the Social Security Advisory Committee, which he appointed, has recommended to him that the proposals that he made should not only be abandoned, but scrapped. Given that he appointed that committee and that the report's recommendation about asylum seekers is perfectly explicit, why has he rejected its recommendations?
Mr. Lilley: I am not sure about the fine distinction between abandoning and scrapping, but the reason why I have done what I have done is that, having considered the representations that the Social Security Advisory Committee had received and relayed to me, I believed that
344
the most sensitive issue was that of transitional problems—the possibility of sudden withdrawal of benefit from a large number of people. It was necessary to create that prospect to prevent an upsurge of claims and, having served its purpose, it was reasonable to change that measure in that respect. I have listened to what the committee has said and to what the local authorities, which we have also consulted, have said and I have produced, I believe, a package that most sensible people would consider to be both fair and essential.
Mr. Harry Greenway: May I associate myself with the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson)? Is my right hon. Friend aware of the housing difficulties in the London borough of Ealing and other boroughs near to Heathrow airport, where, in a recent year, the entire new housing supply had to go to asylum seekers? Has he any plans to ensure that there is a greater dispersal of asylum seekers and appeals so that people on the housing list in Ealing and other boroughs who have been there for months and years are not pushed out of the queue unfairly?
Mr. Lilley: I understand my hon. Friend's concerns. There are certainly no powers at the Government's disposal or within the regulations to determine where people live when they have the right to live in this country. But it creates problems when an extra 50,000 people a year come to this country, the vast majority of whom are not escaping persecution, but seeking economic betterment. The amount of extra housing, schools and facilities that those additional numbers require in this country is over and above the £200 million in benefit costs to which I referred.
Mr. Malcolm Chisholm: I have received letters from a large number of constituents who are outraged at the Secretary of State's proposals, which are still unchanged apart from the transitional period. Why does he continue to make the fatuous analogy between those appealing against the refusal of benefit and those appealing against the refusal of asylum? Even right-wing Conservatives should feel slightly uneasy at the prospect of a large number of genuine asylum seekers—even according to the Government's figures—no longer having the means to apply or appeal.
Mr. Lilley: I am astonished that the hon. Gentleman cannot see the similarity between an asylum seeker appealing against a decision that deprives him of benefit and a British person appealing against a decision that deprives him of benefit. I do not discriminate between those who come from abroad and British citizens, and do not think that we should do so in the benefit system.
Mr. John Marshall: Does my right hon. Friend accept that his statement will be warmly welcomed by the vast majority of people in this country who want Britain to be a safe haven for genuine asylum seekers, but not a soft touch for economic migrants? Will he confirm that the rate of application for asylum in 1995 of 40,000 a year was equivalent to 200,000 applications in a five-year Parliament, and that no Government of any political persuasion could have done anything but take action?
Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. In fact, the position is even more daunting than he suggests because the number of claims is rising rapidly and might

345
continue to rise if the changes that we are making, both in the regulations and the Asylum and Immigration Bill, do not go through. We cannot assume that the level of claims will settle at 50,000 a year; it may continue to rise. This country's share of total claims for asylum made in Europe has risen from about 4 per cent. a decade ago to 13 per cent., and is set to go on rising if we do nothing to bring our system more in line with those of our continental partners.
Mr. David Alton: Throughout the statement the Minister excluded people who are in the United Kingdom with exceptional leave to remain from falling within the "genuine" category. Does he not think that in doing so he does them a disservice and that it would have been better to have told the House that, even according to his figures, the percentage was 75 per cent. rather than 90 per cent.? Does he accept that, as the figure represents just 0.25 per cent. of his Department's entire budget, he has turned a molehill into a legislative mountain? Many in the House will wish to vote against the regulations, so will he say whether there will be a debate on the Floor of the House or in an obscure Committee Room? Will we all have the chance to vote on the proposals? Will they be placed before Parliament in its total authority?
Mr. Lilley: The simple fact is that anyone receiving exceptional leave to remain will first have been found by the authorities not to be a genuine asylum seeker. I do not see why I should give a different verdict from that given by officials who have considered the case in the light of the official definitions of refugees. Those people may encounter mishaps; they may come here from a country where there is no persecution and their claim may be heard. They may be sick and we may decide, for humanitarian purposes, to allow them to stay for a while. But that does not make them genuine refugees fleeing from political persecution and we should not present them as such. Where does the Liberal party propose to obtain £200 million from within the welfare budget? Would it take it from pensioners? One per cent. off pensions would be a small figure in the hon. Gentleman's terms and would finance the continued existence of unwarranted benefits for people who are not genuine refugees.
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is conceivable that the Government would have been censored by the Audit Commission had they not taken measures to prevent the abuse of £200 million in the social security system? Does he further agree that the measure is likely to improve race relations because the last thing that genuine asylum seekers and immigrants want is people falsely using the system in that way?
Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend makes an important point. We could well be open to investigation by the Audit Office or the Public Accounts Committee if we continued a system in which a high portion of benefit expenditure went to those subsequently found not to fulfil the conditions for which it was intended. In those circumstances, it is only right that we should act responsibly. I do not want to wait until I am censored before I act. That seems to be the attitude of the Opposition.

Business of the House
4.25 pm
Mrs. Ann Taylor: Will the Leader of the House make a statement about the business for next week?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 15 JANUARY—Second Reading of the Finance Bill.
TUESDAY 16 JANUARY—Opposition day (1st allotted day). Until about 7 o'clock there will be a debate entitled, "The threat to the BBC World Service", followed by a debate entitled "Cuts in the training budget and the abandonment of the Community Action programme". Both debates will arise on Opposition motions.
WEDNESDAY 17 JANUARY—Until 2 o'clock there will be debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Until 7 o'clock there will be motions on the Employer's Contributions Reimbursement Regulations, Housing Benefit, Supply of Information and Council Tax Benefit (Amendment) Regulations, Income Support (General) (Jobseeker's Allowance Consequential Amendments) Regulations, the Jobseeker's Allowance Regulations and the Social Security (Back to Work Bonus) Regulations.
Remaining stages of the Education (Student Loans) Bill.
Motion on the Potato Marketing Scheme (Commencement of Revocation Period) Order.
THURSDAY 18 JANUARY—Debate on the Army on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
FRIDAY 19 JANUARY—Private Members' Bills.
MONDAY 22 JANUARY—Second Reading of the Nursery Education and Grant-maintained Schools Bill.
The House will also wish to know that European Standing Committee B will meet at 10.30 am on Wednesday 17 January to consider European Community documents Nos. A4-0102/95; SEC(95)731; CM 2866; and two unnumbered reports relating to the operation of the treaty on European Union and the unnumbered explanatory memorandum submitted by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on 8 December 1995 relating to the report of the study group preparing for the 1996 intergovernmental conference.
[Wednesday 17 January:
European Standing Committee B—Relevant European Community documents: (a) A4-0102/95, Resolution of the European Parliament on the functioning of the Treaty on European Union; (b) CM 2866, Report of the Council on the functioning of the Treaty on European Union; (c) SEC(95)731, Report by the Commission on the operation of the Treaty on European Union;(d) Unnumbered, Report by the Court of Auditors on the operation of the Treaty on European Union;(e) Unnumbered, Report of the Court of Justice on certain aspects of the application of the Treaty on European Union; and (f) Unnumbered, Report of the Study Group preparing for the 1996 Intergovernmental Conference. Relevant reports of the European Legislation Committee:

347

(a) HC 70-xix (1994–95) and HC 239-I (1994–95);

(b) HC 70-xix (1994–95) and HC 239-I (1994–95);

(c) HC 70-xix (1994–95) and HC 239-I (1994–95);

(d) HC 239-I (1994–95); (e) HC 239-I (1994–95);

(f) HC 51-v (1995–96).]

I am not yet able to give details of the business for the following three days, but I expect to provide for an Opposition day and that Government business will be taken on Thursday 25 January. On Friday 26 January, the business will be private Members' Bills.
Mrs. Taylor: I thank the Leader of the House for that statement. He was present during the previous statement by the Secretary of State for Social Security on the asylum seekers benefit regulations. During questioning, the Secretary of State said that time had been set aside for a debate on those regulations. As those regulations were laid today and prayed against today, can the Leader of the House let us know when that debate will take place?
The Leader of the House announced a debate on Thursday on the Army. He will be aware of the widespread disquiet on both sides of the House that the Government are considering buying military ambulances from Austria, when British-built ones are available which represent better value for money, are preferred by the armed forces and are interoperable with those in other NATO countries. Will the Leader of the House ensure that Ministers explain their current thinking about the matter in the debate on Thursday? Will he also make sure that Ministers reach no final decisions about the issue until hon. Members have the chance to debate it in the House on Thursday, because it is so important to so many people?
Secondly, the Leader of the House must be aware of the depth of public concern and fear about the pressures that are facing hospital accident and emergency services. The subject was raised during Prime Minister's questions today and I thought that the Deputy Prime Minister was amazingly complacent about the whole issue. We hear almost daily about dangerously ill patients who have been driven around the country or who have been flown by helicopter to other parts of the country in order to find intensive care beds. Those incidents have sometimes had fatal consequences.
Will the Leader of the House be more reasonable than the Deputy Prime Minister in his approach to the issue, and will he acknowledge that our constituents are genuinely and deeply concerned about it? Will he ensure that there is a debate in Government time about the very responsible, if alarming, British Medical Association report, which was published today?
Finally, is the Leader of the House aware that yesterday the Select Committee on European Legislation recommended that five directives should be debated together on the Floor of the House because of their interrelationship and their intrinsic importance? Given the Select Committee's many previous requests that issues be debated on the Floor of the House—most notably its recommendations lating to European Union enlargement—and given that many of those recommendations have been ignored, will the Leader of the House ensure that the Committee's unanimous recommendation is upheld and that the items on economic and monetary union, convergence and social protection are debated on the Floor of the House as soon as possible? The
348
British public will not understand if the Government prevent debate in Parliament on fundamental issues of that kind before the intergovernmental conference.
Mr. Newton: Perhaps I may take the hon. Lady's questions in reverse order. First, I have not had an opportunity to study the recommendations of the Select Committee on European Legislation, and I do not wish to respond until I do so. However, I shall take note of the hon. Lady's representations, along with any that the Select Committee has made.
Secondly, as to the hon. Lady's point about accident and emergency departments, I was present during the exchanges with my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister during Prime Minister's questions and I thought that he was entirely reasonable about the matter. He explained very carefully the action that the Government are taking. I have no plans to provide for a debate on the subject in Government time, but I have said that, apart from the Opposition time that I am providing next week, I also anticipate providing Opposition time in the week after that.
Thirdly, the hon. Lady put her points about the Army ambulance in the context of the debate on Thursday 18 January. I think that the correct course is for me to bring her remarks to the attention of the Minister to whom they were indirectly directed.
Lastly, with regard to the asylum seekers regulations, I have said before that I expect to provide time for debate on the Floor of the House in response to a prayer of the kind that I understand has been laid. I cannot yet give an exact time and date for that debate, but the House will remember that I was not able to give details of business on the three middle days of the week after next.
Sir Norman Fowler: Is it not a tradition of Parliament that the most important and controversial Bills start their lives in this place? If that is the case, why was the Broadcasting Bill—which, by any stretch of the imagination, is both a major and an important Bill—introduced in the other place?
Mr. Newton: I do not think that the convention is quite as clear cut as my right hon. Friend suggests—although certain Bills with particular characteristics would normally begin in the House of Commons. However, we must make a judgment about the balance of legislation between the two Houses when considering the pattern of any parliamentary year and we took all the relevant factors into account.
Mr. Archy Kirkwood: May I return to the important question of social security statutory instruments in relation to asylum seekers? I heard clearly what the Leader of the House said, but he must surely acknowledge that there is exceptional interest in those regulations. Reports are being prepared by the Select Committee on Social Security and by the Commission for Racial Equality, and we have just been able to read the Social Security Advisory Committee's report.
I should like to press the Leader of the House on what he has just said, because he implied that there was a real likelihood of a debate in the last week of January. Will the right hon. Gentleman also consider the fact that one and a half hours may not be enough for such an important matter?
Mr. Newton: I do not think that I can add to what I have just said, except that, of course, arrangements for such
349
debates are normally subject to discussion through the usual channels, in which the hon. Gentleman plays his part.
Mr. John Wilkinson: May I refer my right hon. Friend to the deliberations of European Standing Committee B on Wednesday next week? He has been good enough to cite the documents that could be relevant to the discussions on the European Union treaty and the forthcoming IGC. However, is not the most important document—a prerequisite for a meaningful debate—a White Paper from the Government? In a White Paper, the Government could lay down clearly the principles on which they intend to negotiate.
Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend will, I am sure, have heard what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said on that matter earlier this week. I am not able to add to that at the moment.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: May we have a guarantee that next week Cabinet Ministers will be here to answer questions? In the past week, after a fortnight's recess, we have found that, on Tuesday, the Defence Secretary was gallivanting around Japan instead of being here; on Wednesday, the Foreign Secretary was up the wall in China; and today, the Chancellor of the Exchequer is nowhere to be found. I make no case against the Prime Minister because we know what he is doing today. I am beginning to wonder whether those Cabinet Ministers were told to keep away from the House of Commons this week, in advance of Lady Thatcher's speech, so as not to put their foot in it.
Mr. Newton: Well, I am here answering questions, even if they are not very good.
Mr. John Marshall: May I thank my right hon. Friend for arranging the debate on the Second Reading of the Nursery Education and Grant-maintained Schools Bill? Will I be in order during that debate if I refer to the activities of the Labour and Liberal-controlled Barnet council? Before a recent ballot at Christ's college, which my son attends, the headmaster was threatened that if the parents voted for grant-maintained status, necessary repairs to the school roof would be cancelled. After the ballot, the leader of the Labour-controlled council told the headmaster that he should consider resigning. Is not that more like the thought police of Ceausescu's Romania than the traditions of a liberal democracy in the United Kingdom?
Mr. Newton: I hope that my hon. Friend is right in thinking that those matters would be in order during the debate to which he referred. I know from my own experience that there is a growing number of those disturbing stories, and they are not confined to Barnet.
Mrs. Alice Mahon: Will the Leader of the House reconsider the request for a debate on the crisis in beds in the national health service? Is he aware that all of us face the results of that crisis? At the moment, I am investigating the case of a woman who was removed from the intensive care unit in Halifax. Even though she was given only a 50:50 chance of surviving, she was taken on a two-hour, nightmare journey to Manchester to an intensive care bed there. She was moved because her bed in Halifax was needed for somebody in an even worse state. Does not
350
the Leader of the House realise that there is a crisis facing the NHS because of the massive bed closures, especially in accident and emergency and intensive care units?
Mr. Newton: I am sure that the hon. Lady does not expect me to comment on an individual case from the Dispatch Box.
Mrs. Mahon: We should have a debate, though.
Mr. Newton: I understand that, but I felt that I should make my first point.
On the hon. Lady's other points, my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister put the position in a sensible and balanced way earlier.
Mr. Jacques Arnold: May we have a debate next week on voting arrangements in the House? During that debate, we could consider carefully the circumstances of the vote yesterday afternoon, when we rejected a Liberal Democrat ten-minute Bill. Part of the reason for the defeat of the Bill was the absence of the new Liberal Democrat, the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Miss Nicholson), who did not turn up to support her colleagues, any more than she did the previous night.
Mr. Newton: An interesting point, but not, I think, one that would lead me to arrange for a debate in Government time.
Rev. Martin Smyth: I offer my party's support for the request about Army ambulances.
Would it be possible—if not in the coming week, then in the week in which there still seems to be some time—to have a debate on hospital reorganisation in Northern Ireland? The need arises not just because of today's statement about the amalgamation work in Belfast, but because of the resignations of two distinguished chairmen of trusts and the chief executive of a trust.
Mr. Newton: I note the hon. Gentleman's support for the point about Army ambulances—as, I am sure, will my colleagues in the Ministry of Defence.
I think I had better admit straightforwardly that a debate on hospital reorganisation in Northern Ireland was not among the items on my list for the three days to which the hon. Gentleman refers. The subject seems to me perhaps an appropriate one for a Wednesday morning. The hon. Gentleman might like to bear that in mind.
Lady Olga Maitland: Will my right hon. Friend consider a debate on the new concept of a stakeholder society being proposed by the Labour party? Does he agree that the time has now come when it should be clearly spelt out who these stakeholders are? Are they trade unionists, pressure groups and community groups telling bosses how to run their businesses? Would not such an idea crush businesses when what we want to do is allow them to prosper?
Mr. Newton: As far as I can see, through the miasma of uncertainty surrounding what this is supposed to mean, the answer to my hon. Friend's question is that she is right.
Mr. Jim Marshall: Does the Leader of the House recall that just before Christmas I raised with him the concern in Leicester about the Government's

351
failure to lay the order conferring unitary status on that city? He will probably know that that fear has not been allayed in the interim. Can he announce the date for the order to be laid; failing that, can he give us a reason why the delay is occurring in the first place?
Mr. Newton: I am not in a position even now to give the hon. Gentleman an instant response, but I shall try to ensure that I communicate with him further before the next business questions.
Mr. Peter Luff: Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on the effectiveness of prison in deterring crime and discouraging criminality? That would provide an opportunity to discuss the case of my constituent, Helen Wallace, who was reported in the Worcester Evening News yesterday as saying that she is a reformed drug dealer now because of her experience in prison. Her mother prayed that she would go to prison, and she says that it was right that she should go there. She says that she will not go back to drug dealing because she does not want to go back to prison. Such a debate would show which party is really tough on the causes of crime.
Mr. Newton: There have been a number of opportunities in the past few months for such debates. I cannot promise an immediate further opportunity, but I can certainly undertake to draw that powerful point to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary.
Mr. John Austin-Walker: It would appear from the reply that the Deputy Prime Minister gave earlier that he has not read or understood today's statement by the British Medical Association. Is the Leader of the House aware that the BMA places the responsibility for the present crisis not just on the shortage of finance and beds but on the perverse operational effects of the internal market, the Government's distortion of clinical priorities through their waiting list initiative, and the failure of the community care programme, which is blocking beds? In short, the BMA says that the Government are responsible.
May I draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to early-day motion 248?
[That this House notes with concern that the Greenwich Healthcare NHS Trust cancelled 26 elective non-urgent surgical admissions during the weekend 6th–7th January, that a further eight admissions were cancelled on 8th January and that all non-urgent elective surgery has now been postponed for at least seven days; further notes that the Greenwich Healthcare Trust has experienced a loss of 120 acute beds amounting to 16.37 per cent. of the total between 1993–94 and 1994–95; believes that this pattern is common to other areas of London and shows that London is both under-bedded and under-resourced; and calls upon the Secretary of State to set up an independent inquiry into bed needs and availability in London and an immediate moratorium on hospital and bed closures.]
The motion points out that the healthcare trust in my district has had to cancel all elective, non-urgent surgery as a result of the current crisis. Will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider the request from many hon. Members for a debate on the crisis in the health service to be held as soon as possible?
Mr. Newton: If the hon. Gentleman reads Hansard when it is published, he will find that the Deputy Prime Minister's comments touched on many of the points that he has just mentioned. I understand that the BMA chairman also said that it is
"largely a matter of making the most effective use of the resources we've got."
That is the whole thrust of the Government's policy.
Mr. George Galloway: The whole House will welcome the announcement of a debate on the future of the BBC World Service, given the widespread feeling that that most precious of national assets is being sold short as a result of cuts in the Foreign Office budget. Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure, however, the presence at that debate of the Secretary of State for National Heritage, who has overall responsibility for the BBC, so that she can give us answers about the inquiry that must be going on into the repeated blackouts of the BBC World Service's Arabic television news broadcasts to the middle east? The interruptions appear to have been caused by Orbit Communications, the company in Rome with which the BBC has a contract and which turns out to be owned by a prince of the Saudi royal family, a cousin of King Fahd. We shall also want an explanation of why the BBC's precious editorial independence has been sold to a family like that.
Mr. Newton: Without accepting the generality of the hon. Gentleman's remarks about the position of the World Service, which will no doubt be extensively canvassed in next week's debate, I shall of course draw the more specific part of his question to the attention of the Heritage Secretary.
Mr. Tony Banks: Thank you for calling me, Madam Speaker. I hope that you have noticed that the usual suspects are here on a Thursday evening.
Madam Speaker: I have.
Mr. Banks: Thank you. May I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to early-day motion 260?
[That this House expresses concern at the appointment of Sir Christopher Bland, a well-known Tory party supporter, as the new Chairman of the BBC; believes that the political impartiality and independence of the BBC is compromised by the appointment of someone who has held senior elected office for the Tories and who is clearly a political appointee; and calls for an open, competitive system of appointment for such positions of national significance in order to ensure widespread public support and an end to the use of cronyism by a discredited and exhausted Government anxious to secure placemen in institutions such as the BBC before defeat at the coming General Election.]
The motion concerns the appointment of Sir Christopher Bland as the new chairman of the BBC. I remember him from his days as a Tory member of the Greater London council. Can the right hon. Gentleman imagine the outrage that there would be among Tory Members if an overtly Labour politician had been appointed to such a senior position?
May we have a debate on the method of selection of senior figures for these important public institutions, so that the public can be certain that the appointments are genuinely independent and politically impartial, not just filled by placemen of the Government?
Mr. Newton: If one thing is clear about this appointment, it is that it was in no way the appointment of a politician to do the job. Sir Christopher has wide experience of the broadcasting industry and a considerable understanding of the business, financial and technical issues facing the BBC. That appears to me to have been widely accepted by those who comment on those matters in the public prints.
Mr. Richard Burden: May I echo the points made by the shadow Leader of the House about the relevance of the military ambulances issue to next week's debate on the Army? I draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the growing concern on both sides of the House about the fact that the Government are even considering placing a contract with an Austrian company when British-built military ambulances are available to meet the Ministry of Defence's quality and cost-effectiveness specifications. When drawing those matters to the attention of the Secretary of State for Defence next week, will the right hon. Gentleman emphasise to him the strength of feeling on both sides of the House—amplified in two early-day motions signed by a growing number of hon. Members of all parties?
Mr. Newton: I take the hon. Gentleman's question to be: will I add his name to the list of those who have expressed their concern and draw it to the attention of the Defence Secretary? The answer to that is yes.
Ms Glenda Jackson: May we have an early debate on the barbaric practice of shackling pregnant women prisoners? The Government's response on Tuesday to a private notice question on that issue led the House to believe that staff at Whittington hospital in my constituency, where the women are taken to give birth and to be treated, view such practices with equanimity. Yet a report in today's newspaper states that Baroness Hayman, chair of the Whittington trust, has written to Baroness Cumberlege asking for an early meeting and expressing grave professional concern at such practices.
354
Two issues seem to be at stake: first, the possibility that the House may have been misled; and secondly, the fact that that barbaric and inhumane practice still continues. The sooner we have a full debate and get the matter out in the open and the practice abandoned, the better.
Mr. Newton: I cannot of course add to what my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Home Office said in her statement in response to the private notice question on Tuesday, but I will bring the hon. Lady's comments to her attention and bear in mind her request.
Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: Will the Leader of the House reflect on the fact that, over a year, we have general debates in Government time on Wales, Scotland and Greater London, yet outside Greater London in the south-east of England, there are some 13 million people? I hope and ask that he will agree with one thing: to a large extent, that will be the battleground of the next general election. Is there not an overwhelming case for the Government to have a debate in which they could defend—I assume that they would want to do so robustly—their stewardship of the interests of the people of the south-east of England? In such a debate, my hon. Friends and I could attack the Government and Members of Parliament in marginal seats around the M25 in Hertfordshire, Kent and Essex for their defence of a Government who have caused enormous problems to people in terms of negative equity, anxiety about the national health service and lack of mobility on public transport. Let us have a debate—a gladitorial contest—on the Floor of the House, in which we could attack the Government for their stewardship of the south-east of England and in which Ministers could try to defend their position.
Mr. Newton: According to my observations over a long period, confirmed this afternoon, the hon. Gentleman is not short of opportunities to make his points without me staging further debates. As to the rest, the Government would defend their record robustly, not only on the south-east, but on the whole of the United Kingdom.

Orders of the Day
  Rating (Caravans and Boats) Bill
  Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
  Rating (Caravans and Boats) Bill
    Clause 1

      CARAVANS AND BOATS OCCUPIED AS SOLE OR MAIN RESIDENCE
      Amendment made: No. 1, in page 1, line 24, leave out subsection (5) and insert—
      '() Subsection (4) does not apply in relation to a hereditament where—

      (a) a proposal for the alteration of a local non-domestic rating list in respect of the hereditament has been made, and not withdrawn, before 30th January 1995 in accordance with regulations under section 55 of the Local Government Finance Act 1988,

      (b) the ground for the proposal was that the list was inaccurate because the hereditament ought not to be shown in the list or, in the case of a composite hereditament, the rateable value shown in the list was too high, and

      (c) the reason or one of the reasons given in the proposal, or on an appeal (in accordance with those regulations) to a tribunal against a refusal to make the proposed alteration, for the list being inaccurate was that any pitch occupied by a caravan or (as the case may be) mooring occupied by a boat was domestic property by virtue of section 66(1)(a) or (b) of that Act'.—[Sir Paul Beresford.]

      Order for Third Reading read.—[Queen's consent signified.]
      4.51 pm
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Sir Paul Beresford): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
      356
      First, I am grateful to hon. Members for accepting the amendment. I understand that residential boat owners have some concerns about the way in which local taxation affects them. Those concerns seem primarily to be about the council tax and are outside the Bill's scope, but once we have had full details of their concerns, we shall consider them carefully.
      The Bill returns the law on the rating of pitches for caravans and of moorings for boats to what we had always intended it to be. Unless the Bill is enacted, most caravan and boat owners will face higher local tax bills. I commend the Bill, as amended, to the House.
      4.52 pm
      Ms Hilary Armstrong: I shall be as brief as the Minister, whom I thank for the commitment to consider the case that the Residential Boat Owners Association is making. Those people are concerned that the Bill, although not directly affecting the owners' council tax problem, will make it more difficult for them to advance their arguments. That is why they were worried that the Bill was going through without their involvement. I am therefore grateful to the Minister for agreeing that their concerns will he considered.
      As the Minister said, the Bill restores the position to that which we all thought it was until a valuation tribunal decision. I know that not only many caravan and boat owners, but local authorities will be relieved. They are having enough problems in sorting out council tax issues for this year. The thought that they would have to go back three years to recover money and to repay other moneys did not fill them with great joy.
      Therefore, it is in everyone's interests that the Bill receives a speedy passage. I thank the Minister for acknowledging the point that the Residential Boat Owners Association has been making and I look forward to its concerns being dealt with.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Business Links
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Streeter.]
4.54 pm
The Minister for Small Business, Industry and Energy (Mr. Richard Page): There is a belief in some quarters that it is easier to run a small business than a big one—it is thought that the bigger the company, the more the problems and the more the difficulties. There is nothing further from the truth. The small business man or woman must be an expert at absolutely everything. They must be knowledgeable when the Health and Safety Executive official appears; they must have tax information at their fingertips when the Inland Revenue inspector knocks; they must be skilled in the details of value added tax when the VAT man calls. They must work through the many layers of officialdom that are needed to run a complex society, and let us not forget that that business man or woman has not yet got around to running his or her business.
Another range of skills is needed: to be skilled in design to produce an attractive product; to be a purchasing agent and to ensure that the raw materials are bought at the best price; to be a production engineer to ensure that the assembly line works effectively and that goods are made to price and quality; and, of course, to be a financial wizard to ensure that the cash flow is under control and that the bank manager is kept happy.
Having done all that, the business man or woman has not even got around to selling anything yet, which is the whole object of the exercise and where another raft of skills is needed: in marketing, sales and, again, in credit control. By contrast, a manager in a large company has a simple life. He can monitor the overall scene and subcontract in and out where necessary, when he thinks that he needs expert advice. Who could possibly believe that running a small business is easy? I do not and the Government do not, which is why, over the years, there has been sympathy from and appreciation by the Government for the work undertaken by the small business sector.
The best thing that any Government can do for a business man or woman is to provide a stable, solid economic environment of low taxation, low interest rates and low inflation—that is what the Government are delivering for the small business sector. Added to that, for the first time we are providing stable exchange rates. I know from hard personal experience that small business is more affected by the swings and changes of inflation and interest rates than large ones, which have the capability to hedge. Small businesses do not have the resources to protect themselves against such future changes. That is why, as I said, the best service that any Government can give to the small business sector is a stable economy.
Of course, having said that, it is too easy to forget what, over the years, we have done for the small business sector: small companies' corporation tax rate has been reduced from 42 to 24 per cent.; simplified accounts procedures for very small firms have been introduced; tax rules for
358
the self-employed have been simplified; inheritance tax has been reformed; VAT thresholds have been increased. I could go on. There is, however, more to it than that.
Mr. Barry Sheerman: To be entirely honest, should not the Minister also mention that small businesses and medium-sized enterprises did not want a three-year recession after the 1992 election, which hit so many small businesses and sent them into liquidation?
Mr. Page: Obviously no business wants a recession, but it does want to have a sensible recovery. For the first time for years, the Government have got us out of the boom-bust cycle—vast growth and vast inflation, which then go back down again. Each time we came out of recovery, we found ourselves that bit further down the world economic league table. That is why the Government have given the best basis for any organisation's continual growth that this country has seen since the second world war.
The Prime Minister recognises small businesses' importance to this country's economy and stability, which is why, at a Downing street launch in October, he enthusiastically endorsed a programme of conferences for small businesses throughout this country's length and breadth. The conferences, called "Your Business Matters", are organised and run by the leading associations for small businesses. They bring together everybody involved in the small business sector in the biggest and most comprehensive consultation exercise that anyone can recall. They provide an opportunity for small businesses to have their voices heard and to influence policy, and a report will be given at a final conference in London in March.
Mr. Sheerman: Will the report address the concern that hon. Members have heard consistently at their surgeries since the abolition of the enterprise allowance? If the Prime Minister meant what he said at the Conservative party conference about small businesses being central to the country's prosperity, why will he not bring back an enterprise allowance, which would give so many people the chance to start a small business?
Mr. Page: The hon. Gentleman exhibits all the traits of old Labour. The purpose of the conferences is not to allow the Government to dictate to business what it should have, but to allow small business men and women to tell Government what they want. At the final conference, we shall hear not what the hon. Gentleman says that businesses want but what they say they want, and there is a vital difference. That is a philosophical divide that the hon. Gentleman has yet to cross in coming to terms with the modern competitive world in which we live.
My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade gave a further commitment last October that there would be a Minister with responsibility for small business in every Department to watch out for anything that might harm small businesses. On 29 January, I shall chair a meeting of a group that will review progress since its inception. We want to help small businesses to be more efficient and to give customers what they want in quality, price, design and delivery.
We have come a long way in the past few years. The efficiency of British business has taken a leap forward, but we live in an increasingly international and competitive world. Goods can be traded in as easily as

359
they can be traded out. Businesses that think that they can plod on, unchanged and uncaring are heading for a rude awakening. Increasingly, professionals are passing the enthusiastic amateur. Smaller companies are able to adapt and change, to diversify and to grow, and we have seen some of the advantages of that. The number of small firms in the United Kingdom has been steadily increasing for the past 20 years. At the beginning of the 1980s, there were some 2.4 million; there are now 3.6 million—an increase of more than 1 million. Ten million people work in small businesses that employ fewer than 100 staff. Such employment is vital to the United Kingdom's economy.
Growth in the small firms sector has been rapid. The start-up rate for small businesses has been some 500,000 a year, and hurrah for that, but it is not all good news. The number of firms going out of business is far too high, but the Government are addressing that by urging, supporting and training small businesses to be professional.
In other countries, small business men and women experience problems getting started unless they can show that they have appropriate qualifications. In this country, anybody—qualified or unqualified—can start a business. In other countries, the ability to trade depends on securing approval from the chamber of commerce, and the ability to borrow money is subject to strict scrutiny.
I do not want to stifle the traditional entrepreneurial spirit of the British people, which is well known and respected. We should give as much help as possible to a business start-up or expansion to ensure that it has the best chance of success and to weed out the "impossibles", thus saving all the heartache that occurs when the dreams come crashing down about the ears of a business's owner.
When such dreams collapse, it is not just the small business man or woman who is hurt but their families and other small businesses, which are not paid for services and goods supplied. It is tough in the business jungle, as I know well.
I am aware that goods are more easily traded internationally than ever before. The single market is a great opportunity. We talk of the opportunity of having 300 million-plus people with whom to trade, but it is a two-way street. Anyone who believes that he or she can operate in business without constantly evaluating its efficiency is destined for a rude awakening.
To be a small business man or woman, one must be different—one must be an individualist. Their desire to run their own business sets them apart. They must have that little bit extra—that independence to do their own thing and that individualism not to be part of a crowd. That independence is all very well, but with it must come the realisation that the small business man or woman cannot be expert at everything. They cannot keep up to date with the latest technology, watch the credit control, market survey the effect of the latest designs, investigate export markets, monitor cash flow, and so on—unless, of course, they are super-human, and few of us are. For mere mortals, therefore, the odds are that it will be difficult. The chances are that they might do some of those tasks—if not most of them—badly.
Now help is at hand. A revolution in small business support is sweeping the country. It went largely unnoticed at the beginning of last year, but it grows in stature daily.
360
Last October, the President of the Board of Trade formally launched business link to deliver business support services in England. In Scotland and Wales, the business shop and business connect initiatives are developing in similar ways.
All Governments—I look at the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche) when I say this—have had the interests of the small business at heart and have provided a range of services in a variety of ways. I must say, however, that the present Government, who are no different from previous Governments, have done so with confusing systems, with one Department for this and another for that. The small business man or woman, with precious little time to spare, often threw his or her hands up in despair and did what all small business men and women have always done—got on with doing his or her own thing.
The Government have realised that, and in introducing business link have set in train the most exciting support system for small business that the country has ever seen. For the first time, firms have a single local point of access for a wide range of high-quality services. Some 180 business links are open throughout England, and the number is growing daily. By the middle of this year, there should be some 260.
Mr. Peter L. Pike: The Minister will know that East Lancashire still does not have a business link, despite the overwhelming feeling that we should have one. Will he put pressure on Eltec—East Lancashire training and enterprise council—to get the business link off the skids and under way as soon as possible, because people want to see it in action? We cannot afford to waste time.
Mr. Page: I shall deal with that point in a moment, when I shall respond to the hon. Gentleman. I must say, however, that I agree, I agree and I agree.
Business links are designed to meet local needs. I should have liked more business links to be in place sooner, and I freely admit that I set ambitious targets, but the business link national assessment panel quite rightly will not approve any proposal to set up a business link until it is satisfied that there is a solid basis for continued success.
I come now to the point made by the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike). I am told that the business plan of only one TEC area remains to be approved. The hon. Gentleman has correctly identified it and it is my hope and wish that all the partners in the area will come together to ensure that England has 100 per cent. coverage. I am doing what I can to bring about exactly what the hon. Gentleman has requested.
Mr. Pike: I thank the Minister for that. I do not wish to apportion blame for the delay. If I can help in any way to achieve that objective, I shall be most happy to do so.
Mr. Page: Faced with the combined wrath of myself and the hon. Gentleman, East Lancashire will probably roll over and agree to proposals in a remarkably short space of time. I thank the hon. Gentleman for that kind offer.
The business links are a coming together of all the local support services for small and medium-sized businesses. They include the TECs, chambers of commerce, local authorities, enterprise agencies and export clubs. They will provide one focused support system for the small

361
business men and women of Britain. There will be one contact point, one doorway, one information source and one telephone number rather than the confusion of addresses, numbers and systems of the past.
In addition, in the further interests of simplicity, I have decided that from April 1996 the diagnostic and consultancy service will be integrated with the other similar services presently available through business link. That will help to reduce the number of separate schemes with which business link will have to deal.
It would be helpful if I were to give the House an update of business link's position today. Eighty per cent. of VAT registered businesses are now covered by operational business links. Some 64 business link companies are in business, running 180 outlets. When complete, there will be in the region of 267 outlets. Of the 195 towns and cities with populations of more than 50,000, 141 are covered by business link. At the moment, there are in post 460 personal business advisers, 30 innovation and technology counsellors, 20 export development counsellors and 18 design counsellors. The impact of business link grows literally daily.
The figures for the quarterly assessment for July to September 1995—the only ones available—when only 120 business links were in place show that at that time some 391,000 businesses were registered on the business link databases; more than 4,000 businesses a week were using business link; 7,000 businesses were advised by personal business advisers; more than 1,000 businesses were provided with diagnostic or health check services; more than 8,000 businesses were receiving counselling and more than 1,000 businesses were advised by innovation, technology, design and export counsellors.
Most important of all—and something to which I shall refer on more than one occasion—is the high level of customer satisfaction. For business link to be successful, there must be quality in every outlet—quality of information and service. Quality must be the watchword. It must be in every aspect of the organisation. Just as the name of a seaside resort runs through a stick of rock from beginning to end, quality and business link must be synonymous. That is why business link is required to undergo a tough accreditation process based on the internationally recognised system ISO9001. There will be a third-party assessment by approved certification bodies, independent, I hasten to add, of Government.
Monitoring and evaluations are necessary buttresses to the process to ensure that quality is high. That means quarterly monitoring information covering the number of businesses using the business links, the number of businesses provided with information by business links and the number of businesses advised by personal business advisers—the PBAs—and specialist advisers, as well as customer satisfaction. In addition, Ernst and Young is evaluating the earliest business links, the results of which I hope to have to hand in the near future.
The objectives are to provide early information on business link's effectiveness, to assess the added value of business link and to identify critical issues in the first years of business link's life. In addition, as if that were not enough to ensure high standards and quality, MORI is operating a business link tracking survey to measure firms' awareness, perception and use of business link. Furthermore, an impact indicators feasibility study—a rather grand phrase—will track the performances of firms
362
helped by business link against a control group. There is also the wild card in the pack, a mystery inquirer exercise, to analyse the quality of the information and service received by businesses from business link.
I have gone through everything that is happening, the numbers involved and the growth rate of business link, and I have emphasised the importance of quality. But what does all that mean in the tough marketplace out there in which every business must take part? I have here a wodge of literally hundreds of cases of companies which have been helped by business link. I pull out a couple, purely at random, and surprise, surprise, one happens to be in the constituency of the Leader of the Opposition.
That is a company called Minicraft, a management buy-out company making miniature power tools in Durham. The management team of Neil Stentiford and Neil McPherson met the personal business adviser in Durham, Eddie Jonas, with the result that they have received help in staff training and in overseas exhibitions and their sponsorship. As I understand it, that business link partnership will continue and the company is now forecasting a 50 per cent. increase in activity during the next three years.
The other case that I have by chance selected concerns a company called Med-Lab in the constituency of the shadow Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett). Med-Lab is a supplier of materials to the aircraft industry and monitoring equipment to the petrochemical industry. The area PBA, Caroline Feneley, worked with the managing director, Steve Exon, helping to introduce electronic data interchange. As a result, the company now has a simpler ordering process for its materials, cutting time and cost and giving it a competitive edge. The managing director, Mr. Exon, concluded:
"Business Link have been of invaluable help during this period of development."
Those experiences come from the real world where one lives or dies depending on how well a business is run. As I say, I have literally hundreds of examples here and I know that there are even more at each individual business link.
But when we look to the future, everything comes back, as I said, to the quality of service. The more businesses there are with experience of the high-quality help and advice provided by business link, the greater will be the snowball effect in terms of awareness.
I am under no illusions. The challenges are formidable, but we must meet them if business links are to achieve the potential of which they and British businesses are capable. That will require continual commitment from all. It will require the commitment of partners to set aside occasional unproductive rivalry—I look at the hon. Member for Burnley as I say that—and concentrate on the needs of customers, the commitment of business link to continued improvement and high-quality services and the commitment of customers to spread the word. In addition, there must be commitment from Government to help to develop the network and fund the continuing provision of services.
The country's wealth was built on trade. Small business men and women went to every corner of the globe to sell British products, beating foreign competition and creating this nation. I believe that a resurgence of small business will enable the country to claw its way back up the

363
economic table and create more jobs and wealth, and to aid the expansion of a caring society. Only small businesses—not the big boys—will bring that about.
I strongly believe in the concept of business links' pulling together all the partners that I have mentioned. I think that, when the political history of the 1990s is written, the start of business links will rank among the Government's finest achievements. The spirit that motivates the small business man and woman is at the heart of the nation: it is a spirit to be cared for and nurtured. I will not forget that, and nor will the Government.
5.20 pm
Mrs. Barbara Roche: The Opposition welcome the debate. I shall begin on a harmonious note. The idea of business links is undoubtedly good, and I agree with the Minister that small businesses are the backbone of our economy as both wealth creators and employers; but they face a formidable task. All too often they lose out to big business in the attempt to obtain finance from the banks at the right time, and to cope with the compliance burden placed on them by government.
I welcomed the Minister's frank admission that the country needs to claw its way back up the economic table. Britain has fallen behind in the world prosperity league, and enabling small businesses to grow and prosper is one way in which we shall be able to claw our way up. It is good to hear a Minister admit what the Opposition have been saying for some time.
As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition—the next Prime Minister—said in Singapore on Monday,
"stakeholders in a modern economy will today, more frequently than ever before, be self employed or small businesses. We should encourage this, diversify the range of help and advice for those wanting to start out on their own and use the huge potential of a developing technology to allow them to do so successfully".
I say with conviction that business links are a good idea because they were Labour's idea. The idea was set out in our manifesto, in which we promised to
"establish a network of one-stop advice centres providing small and growing businesses with access to high-quality specialist assistance."
Such a network was badly needed: small businesses were faced with a chaotic maze when it came to obtaining support and help. Should they go to the local training and enterprise council, the local enterprise agency, a high street bank, the economic development unit of the local council, an accountancy firm or some other body? Daunted by the prospect of trailing around all of them, a small business might decide that it would be better off managing on its own. Because they do not know where to go, many small businesses fail to realise their potential for growth.
Opposition Members welcome the Government's decision to take Labour's good advice and introduce a network of one stop shops. Unfortunately, Ministers have handled the implementation of that decision incompetently, hastily and in a manner that—according to the Department of Trade and Industry's own internal auditors—exposed the Department to
"financial risk and potential embarrassment".
364
The report was written a year ago, in January 1995, by four members of the DTI's internal audit team, and it makes chilling reading. It reveals that the current Deputy Prime Minister was so desperate to get the business links programme up and running that he ignored the warnings of officials, sidestepped proper procedures, authorised ultra vires payments and exposed the Department to financial risk and embarrassment.
According to the report,
"the first BL projects were pilots, but there was insufficient time for full evaluation and the establishment of best practice…On a number of occasions the Guidelines for Officials and other appraisal procedures were not rigorously observed, so that, for example, BL outlets could meet target opening dates."
Those observations were borne out by a conversation that I had recently with the chairman of a business link, who told me that, if he had followed DTI guidelines, his organisation would have gone into liquidation.
The report also states:
"Financial appraisal of BL business plans has not been sufficiently rigorous."
The auditors found
"instances where Government Office accountants had questioned the future viability of a BL as proposed, and although the accountants' caution had been noted, the business plan proceeded."
The auditors considered that
"the lack of rigour in financial appraisal and approval…may have contributed to the parlous financial state of many Business Links."
A damning sentence reads:
"Many of the problems stem from policy decisions outside the control of DTI officials".
Those decisions were clearly taken by Ministers.
For some reason, Ministers do not seem to want to discuss the report. When asked about it on 5 April, the current Deputy Prime Minister told my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Mudie):
"the hon. Gentleman should respect the rights of Ministers to conduct internal investigations into projects which they are establishing…I do not think that it adds to the confidence in the regimes that we are establishing if reports are leaked before time and if misjudgments are then paraded in newspaper headlines."—[Official Report, 5 April 1995; Vol. 257, c. 1727.]
That is an extraordinary view for a Minister—a Deputy Prime Minister—who proclaims that he is in favour of open government.
When I wrote to the President of the Board of Trade to express my concern, I was told:
"funds used in the Business Link programme have not been, and will not be, jeopardised by a lack of financial appraisal and control".
Although every hon. Member would like to believe that assurance, the letter seems to express a remarkably ostrich-like view of the statement in the report that the then President of the Board of Trade's behaviour resulted in ultra vires payments, and the DTI's possible exposure to
"financial risk and potential embarrassment".
Nor could the Minister give me any assurances that what was described as a "parlous financial state" in the internal auditors' report had improved, and that a similar situation would not arise again.
The report highlighted financial problems and risks because 55 outlets had been opened in 16 months. Since then, 121 outlets have opened in a year. Can the Minister explain what has changed to ensure that those risks do not continue?

365
I must also ask about financial management. Given that the internal auditors' report referred to accountants' concern about the ignoring of the viability of business plans, and in view of the collapse of the South Thames training and enterprise council, which left huge debts, most members of the public would want to think that the DTI had considered what to do in the event of the financial collapse of a business link, but when my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham) asked about the matter in July, he was told in a written answer that the DTI
"has not considered arrangements to respond to the financial collapse of an individual business link because the Department is not aware of any instances where a business link is facing or is likely to face this situation."—[Official Report, 18 July 1995; Vol. 263, c. 1223.]
In view of the internal auditors' remarks, I find that reply astonishing.
Despite Government mismanagement on what most people—certainly taxpayers—would consider a fairly major scale, there is some good news about business links. Some are providing businesses with effective and helpful services. That is a tribute to their staff, many of whom are working hard to give the best possible service and to make the one stop shop network a reality.
Yesterday, I visited the London, City, Hackney and Islington business link in Old street, where I met members of staff whose commitment, ideas and record were admirable. Staff are working in difficult circumstances, and I was impressed with what I saw.
I travel around and speak to people. I must tell the Minister that a senior person, who until recently was working with another new business link, told me recently that she had felt that she was living in a "bureaucratic nightmare", so the Department still has much work to do. The overwhelming picture of business links that has emerged so far suggests that the service is patchy and the quality extremely variable.
When the Minister told us about the evaluation exercise that is to involve Ernst and Young, he said that a "mystery shopper" would be used. That is an excellent idea, and earlier this week I carried out my own mystery shopper exercise. The business link signpost line was launched with a flurry in October by the then President of the Board of Trade. Its aim was to ensure that, with one quick telephone call, members of the public could find out where their nearest business link was.
That is a good idea, but how does it work in practice? I decided to use the mystery shopper technique and find out. On Tuesday, I asked someone in my office to telephone the line and ask where the nearest business link office to Parliament street was. The person who telephoned was told most politely that the database was finding it difficult to cope at the moment, and that the inquiry taker would have to refer her to a freephone number.
The official could not find the freephone number, so she promised to call back. We have heard nothing since. As the member of staff had been on the line for five minutes while the freephone number was being sought, the person from my office asked whether the signpost line was free. The reply was that it probably was free, but that the official was not entirely sure.
366
When the Deputy Prime Minister launched the line in October, he said:
"It will not be Government or partner organisations which will ultimately judge whether Business Links are successful. Business customers will judge the effectiveness of services and determine their success."
I agree, but on the basis of the experience of this mystery shopper, the judgment is not a happy one.
I am not the only person who has found the service unhelpful. Today's issue of Design Week carries a letter from a woman who runs a small design consultancy in central London, and who contacted her local business link to find out the type of advice and information that it offered on local design consultancies.
The letter, which reveals an astonishing practice, says:
"Presumably Business Links' service is focused on saving businesses both time and expense locating specific resources, so you can imagine my bewilderment when I received numerous photocopied sheets from their local Thomson Directory. The listing included services from Artists to Interior Designers, incorporating the categories: Dental Technicians, Interpreters and Invalid Equipment and Services. This piece of literature, although no doubt fascinating reading, may prove in the long term to be limited in its ability to enlighten business managers."
As the Minister knows, design is a sensitive area for business links. According to the Minister's own admission, the ill-fated consultancy brokerage service wasted almost £3 million of public money when it was scrapped before it was launched. I understood from the Minister's reply, when I raised the matter with him, that the fact that the service collapsed before it was even started was partly the fault of the press. Apparently, hurtful articles had been written about the service and its mismanagement. Perhaps when he replies the Minister will enlighten us further.
I have given some examples of what makes small businesses loth to trust business link initiatives, and what makes the public rightly suspicious about the way in which public money is being spent.
A final concern is the extent to which firms know about business links. One of the Forum of Private Business's quarterly surveys last year asked respondents to rate the help that they had received from various support agencies and organisations in categories ranging from "significant help" to "no contact".
Of all the agencies listed—including enterprise agencies, TECs, local enterprise companies, banks, local authorities, colleges and others—business links had the lowest level of contact with small firms. Only 9.7 per cent. of respondents had had any contact with a business link.
Of course, members of the Forum of Private Business are typically at the small end of the range of small businesses and one must bear in mind the fact that the business links network is quite new and not yet complete, but it is worrying that such a small percentage of businesses had any contact with it.
Another major concern is the service that business links provide, or do not provide, for very small businesses with fewer than 10 employees which, according to the figures that the Department of Trade and Industry published last June, account for 94.4 per cent. of firms. Again, it appears that the service to them is patchy.
The bottom line of what business links must provide is spelt out in the business link service guide, published in October 1995, as:

367
"an enquiry, information and referral service to start up and microfirms".
The manual does not encourage business links to consider that firms with fewer than 10 employees have growth potential. It suggests that a way of targeting firms with growth potential is the
"database approach—segmenting by size, possibly starting with all firms with more than ten employees."
We know that many firms—indeed, most small businesses—have fewer than 10 employees. We talk about small businesses being the backbone of our economy; we must remember that firms that employ fewer than 10 people often have tremendous growth potential and provide a significant proportion of the wealth of this country.
The manual continues:
"The national partners recognise that as a result of recent public funding changes some areas will offer typical start-up firms very limited services. Although only a small proportion of all start ups have traditionally received publicly funded support, in some areas this proportion will fall further and it will probably be impossible to achieve the suggested service options."
Business link's own manual makes the startling admission that there will be a decrease in service to small firms. I know that both the Federation of Small Businesses and the Forum of Private Business are rightly much concerned about that. The whole House, too, will be concerned about it. As constituency Members of Parliament, we frequently encounter such firms, and there will be much apprehension if it is felt that the service for them will be "very limited".
The Prince's Youth Business Trust has also expressed anxieties. Everyone agrees that that trust has an excellent record. Indeed, I remember the Minister of State for the Armed Forces saying on television that the Prince's Youth Business Trust's record in creating small businesses and dealing with unemployment was much better than that of the Government. The trust's excellent work in helping more than 24,000 18 to 29-year-olds set up small firms is well documented. The top 100 businesses started with the support of the trust employ more than 2,000 people and have a total turnover of £50 million a year.
In the past, young people who were helped to set up a business had recourse to enterprise allowance to get them over the period when they were no longer receiving benefit but when money was taking some time to come in from the new business that they had started up. Now that the business start-up scheme has been subsumed into the single regeneration budget, its national coverage is again extremely patchy. The trust found that only one third of TECs provide any form of grant for business start-ups. On top of that, it is estimated that the number of training places for new start-ups has reduced by approximately half. I would be extremely grateful if the Minister would address these points.
The uneven and inadequate provision hardly fits in with the Deputy Prime Minister's vision—he announced the beginning of business links as
"the highest calibre…business support arrangements in each area of the country."
Another worry in this regard was expressed by the Trade and Industry Committee, which reported that the unwillingness of business links
368
"to assist the smallest firms might encourage the establishment of a new range of services outside the BL network, particularly in regions where a higher rate of business start-ups is regarded as an important aim".
Since I had the honour to take on my shadow post, I have gone up and down the country to talk to small businesses. I have been struck by the number of small business networks that are purely self-help operations. For them, the local TEC or business link means very little. When I ask someone involved in a small business whether they have any relationship with the TEC or business link, I am often greeted with, at the very least, a lift of a sceptical eyebrow. There is a problem—in that the Government do not appear to be reaching the people who need the services.
At the beginning of my speech, I said that small businesses were the lifeblood of the country. They are absolutely essential to growth and—like the Minister—I salute the men and women who work in small businesses for every hour God sends to provide for their families and their communities. While we welcome the setting up of business links, the sad fact is that the Government's mismanagement of the scheme means that the picture has not changed for far too many small businesses. A good idea has been mishandled by the Government, who have been described by the ex-deputy chairman of the Conservative party as
"ineffectual and unable to deliver its promises."
No wonder John Maples said that
"small businessmen in particular feel let down".
I can assure the House that the next Labour Government will not let them down.
5.43 pm
Sir John Cope: I am glad that the debate gives me an opportunity to applaud business links, as the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche) did—at least in principle. But I shall go further, as I wish to welcome the progress that has been made, more of which has been announced by my hon. Friend the Minister this afternoon.
My hon. Friend said that business links were the first single point of contact for small firms. I know what he means, but he is not quite right about that, as ideas on the subject have been developed over many years. In 1967—a long time before I became a Member of Parliament—I helped my noble Friend Lord Weatherill, who was then a new Back-Bench Member, to write a pamphlet on small firms called "Acorns to Oaks". At the time, that seemed to be a novel and sparkling title.
In the pamphlet, we advocated a one-stop shop for advice and counselling centres for small firms, to be based on the American model of the Small Business Administration and to be provided or backed by the Government. I am glad to say that the Government's small firms service came into being under the Conservative Government a few years later. I believe that the service did an excellent job, both in signposting those who contacted it to all sorts of other services and Government Departments and through the counselling and advice service that it built up over the years.
Subsequently, the enterprise agency movement began to grow in the private sector, and an excellent movement it has proved to be. It was encouraged and financially

369
supported in the early years by the Government, and it was doing a broadly similar job in many respects to the small firms service. A multiplicity of provision grew up, which became more and more confusing as time went on. The services provided by the agency were added to those of the chambers of commerce and chambers of trade, which in many cases had existed for a long time and were providing advice and other services to all kinds of businesses. That is particularly true in the case of chambers of trade, which provided assistance to the smallest businesses and continue to do so effectively.
Twenty years after helping to write that pamphlet, I became the Minister with responsibility for small firms. While I was in that job, we created the training and enterprise councils, to build a partnership between the public and private sectors. The Government gave them responsibility for fostering enterprise, and business links have developed from the initiative taken at that time. The importance of business links is due partly to the concept of a one-stop shop. Information of the broadest kind on anything that a business might wish to know about—often in a signposting form—should be available in a single place for small firms. I believe that that is of particular value to the smallest type of firm—to which the hon. Lady was referring—which is least likely to have contacts and specialist expertise at its fingertips.
The TECs also provide training, counselling and guidance to small firms. My hon. Friend the Minister emphasised that far too high a proportion of small firms which start do not go on to succeed. We need a higher success rate, and we also need more of the firms that now exist to grow and expand. The hon. Lady made that point as well. I believe that advice and training are essential if that is to occur.
One of the difficult things about trying to run a small business is the breadth of matters with which a small business man or woman has to deal on any business day. Those involved must deal not only with the business, selling products and hiring staff, but with premises, machinery and production. A small business man must also deal with all the various agencies, and there is an enormous list of Government and local government agencies with which every small firm has to deal at one time or another. Those include the taxation agencies and revenue collectors to which my hon. Friend the Minister drew attention. There are also the local government controls of one sort or another that apply to different businesses—many of them apply to all businesses—and the various employment regulations and tribunals are also important.
There is a huge spectrum of matters with which a single person trying to run a small business has to deal, making life difficult for a small firm. A large firm has a finance director to deal with finance matters and to argue with the bank, a production director to deal with the production side, a marketing director to deal with marketing and specialists in different skills. Outside specialists, in the form of accountants and lawyers, can also be brought into play when required. The larger firm, with all its expertise, has a much better chance of mastering all the regulations.
The, small firm has the crucial difficulty of trying to cover such a wide spectrum of necessary expertise, which is why training and guidance are so important. One cannot train someone in everything, across the board, in a single set of training sessions. That is why a place to go for expert and follow-up advice when trouble occurs or when
370
a part of the business needs to be developed—as well as a place for initial and further training once the business develops—is so important. The link between training, advice and a successful enterprise was part of the logic at the heart of the idea behind training and enterprise councils, which combine training and enterprise under a single council that is composed of the leaders of local industry and commerce.
I cannot speak for the way in which business links are developing in the rest of the country, but I have been keeping an eye on the one that serves my part of the country—Bristol and the surrounding area. As far as I can see, our business link is doing extremely well. It is still early days though, as it is for any business link.
The business link in my constituency is rightly based in Bristol, but it has three outstations up and running. I very much hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will come and help us open the South Gloucestershire business link. Recently the Northavon chamber of commerce has rightly changed its name, in anticipation of the local government changes, to the South Gloucestershire chamber of commerce. The South Gloucestershire business link is due to be launched later this year and will provide a further service in what has been, up to now, the county of Avon. It will have the full backing of the South Gloucestershire chamber of commerce, of which I have the honour to be the president, as well as the support of the enterprising university of the West of England and the excellent New Work Trust, which is an enterprise agency of great vigour, and the other people who are backing the main business link in Bristol.
Wholehearted backing is extremely important. The Bristol business link is doing so well because of the wholehearted involvement of the main players: the Bristol chamber of commerce initiative, the TEC, and the local offices of Government Departments.
The revitalisation of the Bristol chamber of commerce, which took place two or three years ago, is of great importance. It is part of a whole new spirit that I detect in Bristol, which has been stimulated by developments such as the Bristol development corporation and the port of Bristol. I believe that the abolition of the county of Avon has also helped to revive the spirit of an enterprising city, which Bristol has been for many centuries.
The Bristol business link is situated in the chamber of commerce's own premises. It has an agency agreement with the chamber of commerce by means of which about £750,000 a year of services that were previously provided directly by the chamber of commerce are now being provided through and by the business link. That shows how much the chamber of commerce has been prepared to put its eggs into the business link basket. WESTEC, the West of England TEC, similarly provides its enterprise services and training through the business link. The Department of Transport has done the same in relation to its export services locally. That commitment by Bristol business link's backers is crucial to its success.
We heard earlier from the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) about the difficulties in his part of the country. Any hon. Members who are having difficulty with their TEC should look carefully to see whether the business link has the wholehearted commitment of the chamber of commerce and the TEC. If not, they should do everything possible to encourage that support.

371
The hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green endorsed the idea, as do I, that the customers will ultimately judge whether business links are successful. In that respect, business links are exactly like any other business. The customers decide in the end whether a business is successful by deciding whether to purchase its services or goods. Bristol business link is receiving about 1,500 calls each month, and I gather that there is a high level of satisfaction among the callers when their wide range of queries are dealt with. I believe that that is a success story.
It was good to hear the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green speak in support, admittedly in general terms, of small firms and to know that the Labour party has taken on board the importance of small firms. I take that as part of its lurch to the right, which has been going on firmly during the past year or so. To somebody like me, however, who has been a Member of Parliament for quite a while, in some senses it is rather surprising to hear the Labour party say such things.
Mrs. Roche: The right hon. Gentleman had the great good fortune to be a Minister with responsibility for small business. I am sure that he will agree that the first small business Minister was the late Lord Lever, which demonstrates Labour's commitment to small firms. The right hon. Gentleman will remember that the Bolton committee on small firms was set up under a Labour Government.
Sir John Cope: I—[Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Minister points out that Lord Lever really had his finger on the pulse of small firms; but I would certainly not take away from him the credit for having been the first small firms Minister. The Bolton report was not produced entirely in response to the pamphlet that I mentioned earlier, but the pamphlet was part of a movement that built up the pressure of small businesses. Harold Wilson's way of escaping that pressure was, first, to delegate the matter to Lord Lever and, secondly, to set up a committee to go away and look into it for a long while. The report that the Bolton committee produced was much more erudite, much larger and thicker and had many more appendices than our pamphlet, but our pamphlet read like a summary of the report even though it had been written two or three years earlier. The Bolton committee report came to the same conclusions, but by that time the Labour Government had been defeated and were unable to implement it.
What the Labour Government did do—I have no doubt that they would do so again if they had the opportunity, which I hope they do not—was to load burdens on to small firms. I believe that if Labour again had the chance, the steam would go out of the deregulation initiative, for example. We know that it would sign up for the social chapter and introduce a minimum wage, and we are told that it wants to give councils the opportunity to raise extra money from business rates instead of raising it from the voters through council tax.
Those measures are anti-small business and would make life extremely difficult. There is no doubt that in due course Labour would think of ways to discriminate against the self-employed, as it did in the past, in matters such as national insurance. That is no way to help small
372
businesses flourish and grow. The proof of that is in the way in which small firms, as my hon. Friend the Minister said, have grown and flourished since the Labour Government were defeated in 1979 and all the various bits of discrimination that I described have been unravelled.
It is important that small businesses flourish, as both the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green and my hon. Friend the Minister said, because it is only the smaller firms that can provide the employment growth that we need, as well as a great deal of dynamism and flexibility in the economy. For the sake of the British economy and people, it is essential that we do all that we can to support small and medium-sized businesses and help them grow. Business links are an important core of that work and it is good to hear from my hon. Friend the Minister of the progress that they are making.
5.59 pm
Mr. Barry Sheerman: I, too, congratulate whoever decided that there would be a debate on business links, in which I am most interested. We have rather a select little group in the House this evening. As I am a former shadow spokesperson on small business, it seems that most of us have had some role in the subject.
The right hon. Member for Northavon (Sir J. Cope) spoilt an otherwise excellent contribution when at the end of his speech he had to make a party-political onslaught. He misled the House in one slight sense. The fact is that all parties have neglected small business over a long period because they all had the view that the big companies—the big corporations, the massive employers—were the way to regenerate our economy, make ourselves more competitive, sell more abroad and bring our wealth creation and production to bear on our problems. All parties started to realise at about the same time that that was not going to happen. The number of large companies, and the number of people they employed, declined. Their percentage impact on our economy declined. That is dramatically demonstrated by recruitment.
Any university vice chancellor who was asked about graduate recruitment would say that the days of the big companies, the ICIs and the Unilevers, which recruited hundreds of graduates on the milk round, have gone. All political parties realised that future employment and wealth creation would come more from small and medium-sized firms and less from the big companies. Sometimes we are not honest enough to say that those are the facts of history. So often we, as politicians, do not lead the trend but follow it. Many people in business were saying that small and medium-sized enterprises would be the salvation of our country long before any political party or Government grasped that nettle.
Business links have arrived, as history shows, with all-party support. We all wanted some mechanism through which we could stimulate small and medium-sized enterprise. Over time, all the parties have committed themselves in their manifestos and working party documents to creating something like Business Links. It was not all in search of a one-stop shop. I have seen all the literature and know all the speeches about one-stop shops. Of course, it is good to have available one place to go to telephone and either get information there or access to information held there that leads on to advice from elsewhere.

373
Let us be honest about the fact that all Ministers, and potential Ministers, wanted a direct delivery system through which the Department of Trade and Industry could intervene in the small and medium-sized enterprise world. That is the truth of the matter. The Opposition wanted it, and the Government also wanted it, but the DTI never had a reliable mechanism through which it could operate at grass roots level.
The quality of economic development units of local authorities was patchy: some were good, some were excellent, some were average and a lot were pretty awful. The training and enterprise councils—late entrants—were patchy. One did not know whether they were still bound by civil servants who had not quite come into the enterprise economy, or who had done so but could not quite come to terms with it. The TECs were not exactly what was wanted by a DTI Minister.
The chambers of commerce were also patchy. Some of us have marvellous chambers of commerce—in mid-Yorkshire we have one of the best in the country—but in some places they are described as lawyers' luncheon clubs and they certainly do not have the ability to deliver.
Mr. Denis MacShane: My hon. Friend means that they are Conservative party dining clubs.
Mr. Sheerman: I dare not say that as my friends in the chamber of commerce movement would never forgive me.
Whatever agency one looked at from No. 1 Victoria street, there was a deficiency. The creation of business links got all-party support when the then President of the Board of Trade made the announcement in December 1992 because we all looked at Germany and the statutory chambers of commerce and talked of having a mechanism as good as that at delivering policy on the ground. Let us get history accurate in respect of the all-party support and why it existed.
To add a little salt and pepper of party-political debate, the Conservative Government's track record since 1979 on small business is pretty quiet. With all respect to the former Minister for small business, the right hon. Member for Northavon, my impression, in Opposition and as shadow Minister, was that the non-interventionist stance of the Thatcher years meant that there was little desire to get out there and intervene. Indeed, both sides of the House recognise that after Lady Thatcher ceased to be Prime Minister and we got a new President of the Board of Trade—who said that he was going to intervene before breakfast, after breakfast, before lunch, after lunch, and so on—the business links scheme was part of a change in the Conservative party, which recognised late in the day that it needed to be able not only to intervene but to intervene at grass roots level.
Sir John Cope: I absolutely disagree with much of what the hon. Gentleman said about the history of the matter. In the first place, the small firms service, which was set up under the previous Conservative Government, was a much more direct intervention by the DTI than were the TECs or business links, because they were Government offices full of Government employees. They did not have the partnership approach which has since developed.
Secondly, I disagree with the hon. Gentleman's description of what happened under my noble Friend Baroness Thatcher when she was Prime Minister. If he
374
wants proof of that, he should consider the increase in the number of small firms and the huge list of things that were done on tax—some of which my hon. Friend the Minister mentioned—and on regulation, as well as the setting up of training and enterprise councils.
Mr. Sheerman: The hon. Gentleman and I can disagree on the history. Many would say that the restrictions under which small business operated through the 1980s became greater and that it became more difficult to run a small start-up business.
Let us consider business links in a positive spirit because we must make them successful. If they provide quality advice, they will survive and thrive. The only element of discord that I have picked up is the constant reiteration, "But that is always linked to being a business and making a profit". One of the biggest question marks over business links is where the medium and long-term funding will come from and whether the DTI's commitment will remain once the initial finance period, which I understand was for three years, dries up.
We must be careful, however, because while businesses will be able to stand on their own feet in our big cities, in constituencies such as yours, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and mine, it will be more difficult, if not impossible, for businesses to be a commercial success. That does not mean that business links are not doing a marvellous job by delivering quality and a service that helps small business. They are worth while and should be supported, but the Government and the forthcoming Labour Government must face that problem.
The business links programme delivers three kinds of specific advice: on exporting, design, and information technology, all of which are vital. The most fascinating and encouraging of those is advice on design. The Design Council's input is probably the secret of the programme's success because the local design networks that support the design counsellor give advice on which he or she can rely and a lot of information issued by the Design Council through publications and networking. That is how to maintain quality.
It is still early days and it will take time to get that aspect of the business links programme established. Criticisms are inevitable as the system gets up and running, but the design counsellor aspect is the secret of business links' success. If we want quality we must ensure that management and advice are monitored, and the Design Council has a role to play in that respect. I am not sure how the Minister intends to proceed in terms of the other two areas of expertise, exports and information technology, but those, too, need to be monitored.
If quality is to be maintained, we must ensure that the personal business advisers at the heart of this concept are of good quality. If they are the sort of managers who failed to run their own enterprise and could find nothing else to do, business links will not work. There has been a tendency to employ such people in some of the agencies that have been set up over a number of years. We need dedication to get the best personal business advisers. They must therefore be trained and, if we are to train them well, we must engage the best business schools, and economics and management departments.
We must also involve the best of the high quality private sector. I see an interesting synthesis in linking our business schools to some of this country's great

375
consultancies, such as Price Waterhouse and KPMG, so that they can participate in training personal business managers and then monitor their performance. If that is not done, small business people in the business link scheme will say that they received duff advice. Members of Parliament know that the business network in any town or city is the best network possible because business people tell their friends, and once a scheme gets a bad reputation it will not be resuscitated without a total relaunch and new name. So whichever party runs business links, it must ensure that quality is maintained.
The success of the scheme also depends on partnership. One reason why business links came into operation was that the partnership was not good enough. Chambers of commerce may not have talked to local universities, and local universities may not have been on speaking terms with their local authorities' economic development units. There were rivalries and a lack of ability to work together. Given that business links has funding and all sorts of advantages, it must be seen to be able to draw that partnership together and make it work. It must not be seen as a representative big brother—or big sister—of the DTI that will impose its will. A little frisson is coming from some sectors—
Mr. Page indicated dissent.
Mr. Sheerman: The Minister may shake his head, but a little frisson is already coming from some areas. No one is perfect and, given that 180 business links have now been commenced, one would not expect no disharmony whatever. A careful balance must be struck and local politicians and Ministers must do all that they can to encourage the partners to work together and ensure that the business link group does not get a reputation for trying to get its own way. Politicians know that that is not how to achieve an effective partnership and good results. We must make small and medium-sized firms understand that concept.
I strongly agreed with my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche) that the scheme must not be geared only to where the Government think that they will achieve the quickest results. We all know that business schools and researchers have told the Government how to achieve the quickest fix and double the size of medium-sized businesses, but we must make the scheme appeal to and help small as well as large enterprises. I remember when the former President of the Board of Trade introduced the first pilot scheme in December 1992, which was designed for very small as well as large enterprises. Those small enterprises must be helped, which is why I made the jibe to the Minister when he introduced this debate that it is a pity that enterprise allowance has been lost. Helping small businesses to start up remains vital to their life blood.
Small and medium-sized businesses need help and good-quality advice, and the business link programme can deliver that. It is odd that I have been described as "old Labour" as the other day someone trying to be rude to me in a meeting said that I was a Blairite before Blair. I believe that the private sector should not be shut out.
Many of our constituents work as accountants, in the financial services sector or as bank managers and, over the years, have given high quality advice. They, too, must
376
be brought into the partnership and not treated badly, although I agree that they must be monitored. Part of a Member of Parliament's job is to signpost good solicitors, lawyers and accountants to our constituents, so we do a monitoring job in that respect. All those partners must be given respect, evaluated and encouraged. In that way, business links can make a real contribution to wealth creation and the success of our country.
6.19 pm
Mr. David Chidgey: I have listened to the debate with increasing fascination because we appear almost to be running a parallel debate. All hon. Members who have spoken appear to agree, which is obviously causing confusion. It appears that we are witnessing the Government and the official Opposition debating not whether the business links is a good idea, but who thought of it first. It is vastly entertaining.
I am always tempted to scurry out of the Chamber and fetch the famous Liberal yellow book of the early years of the present century and demonstrate that all the good ideas emanated from my party, but that might test the patience of the House too much. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I shall therefore refrain from embarking on what I believe would be a sterile exercise—my words would fall on deaf ears, at least.
I listened to the Minister's remarks with great interest. Although I cannot quite accept some of the glowing sentiments that he expressed, I can agree that the one stop shop—the business links—is a good idea that deserves support from both sides of the House. By concentrating services and help for small business in one place which, one hopes, is accessible by one telephone call, business links is a vast improvement on the confusing plethora of services from different sources that existed previously. Organisations that were trying to make their way in business might previously have found it too daunting to seek help, and returned to doing whatever they did previously.
I shall discuss several matters that show that we should not be complacent. I hope that the Minister will direct attention to those matters of concern in the months ahead. Specifically, I shall speak about the help that is needed by very small businesses, about which several hon. Members have spoken. I shall also discuss the amount that the business link is likely to charge small businesses for its services, and the best way in which to streamline the services that are provided by chambers of commerce, training and enterprise councils and other organisations. I do not believe that streamlining is quite as easy as might have been inferred from some hon. Members' speeches.
We must emphasise the importance of micro-businesses—businesses with one to nine employees. Several hon. Members have mentioned them. As the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche) said, they represent nearly 95 per cent. of all the firms in the country. Equally important is the fact that they represent more than 28 per cent. of the work force. They make an important contribution to our economy.
The Minister emphasised the importance of small businesses to the economy. Their needs should be addressed carefully and specifically and they should be vigorous supported.

377
The small business has great difficulty employing key staff to cope with the management tasks that are taken on as a matter of course by larger enterprises. I remember, from my professional experience running my own office with a few staff—slightly more than 10, but certainly not in the wider range—becoming a multi-skilled person, not because I wanted to but because I had to. That is a common experience. People spend many long hours trying to do the accountant's job after most others have gone home, and hope that they have got it right.
A great problem for micro-businesses, as I call them, is having skills in-house, training their staff and undertaking financial planning, business development and the essential management task of marketing. The problem is that, although they recognise that they do not have skills in-house, they often do not have the financial resources to buy in expertise either. They are too busy trying to make a turn on their day-to-day business. Whatever profit they make might be kept for the days when the orders do not come in; it is not automatically spent on buying in expertise on matters that are separate from their main function.
Many small business are very suspicious of consultants. I am an ex-consulting engineer, so I know. The people who earn their living on the knife edge often say, "If you ask a consultant the time, the first thing he will do is borrow your watch". A politician would probably not give it back. The key point is that many small businesses operate at the margins, and cling on by their fingertips to survive. They do not have the fat in their financial operations that enables them to employ outside expertise.
Under the current regulations, many firms have little opportunity to take up the services offered by business links. It is not only a question of cost. Small firms with four or five employees—there are many of them—cannot spare the employee time involved in making contact with business links.
We must introduce imaginative ways of delivering business links services. We must use distance learning techniques, set up support networks—as other hon. Members have said, that is happening informally—and use new technology. If business link is to succeed, it must be based on imaginative and time and resource efficient techniques to enable very small businesses to take advantage of it.
I should like to mention cost comparison. I mentioned that small businesses are conscious of the margins on their resources. We must come to grips with the fact that many small businesses will take a very critical look at the charges that will eventually flow from using business link services.
We know that the highest growth in new businesses is in the service sector which, basically, involves selling people's time and expertise. The hourly rates chargeable for people's time have inevitably been driven down by the recession and by fierce competition, not only in the United Kingdom but world wide. We now confront global competition through the information super-highway. That competition will have a strong impact on the profitability—and the soundness—of small businesses in the service sector.
It is now possible, in no more time than it takes to go down the road to a local supplier, to buy in computer programming and project design from centres as far away as India, where overheads and wage costs are much lower.
378
A company that sells a product that depends on a person's time, finds itself competing—somewhat unfairly, one might say—with companies whose costs are dramatically lower but whose products are as available because they are on tap on the information super-highway.
The charges for business link services must reflect that super-competitive environment. If clients or potential clients of business links who are in the service sector find that, when pricing their products, they cannot do more than double the salary costs to cover overheads, social costs and perhaps some profit, they will not be prepared to pay business links charges approaching those that management consultants like to charge. Business links must be able to operate sympathetically to small businesses and at rates that clients consider reasonable and worth while. Their clients are at the sharp end and know how tight the margins are.
I shall now discuss combining the skills of the chambers of commerce with those of the TECs. Following that avenue to concentrate services is an attractive option because one draws in established skills and the other draws in organisations that are well known in the business community and supported by it. It would be wrong, however, if the House were to assume that that course would be a panacea. Much depends on the location and culture of the business community being served.
When I was the Liberal Democrat spokesman for employment and training, I had the opportunity to visit Northampton. I was much impressed by the results of the Northamptonshire TEC's merging with the Northamptonshire chamber of commerce. There were some remarkable results in training programmes, but that is a subject for another day. The important factor is that both bodies served the county of Northamptonshire. Their boundaries were coterminous, so, when they merged, the synergy between the two was obvious and the chamber of commerce's representatives on the board of the new organisation were elected from the membership of the old chamber of commerce—something that is unusual, but to be encouraged.
In Hampshire, such easy merging and synergy is probably a long way away. We have two major cities, Portsmouth and Southampton, which have distinctly different cultures. There is a long history of fierce competition between them, perhaps going back to the civil war when, as I remember, they were on different sides. That competition runs through everything from their soccer teams to their universities. Each city has a powerful chamber of commerce that competes with the other for Government assistance, business development and export trade.
Hampshire TEC, however, has to serve the needs of both cities fairly and without favouritism—and they are two completely different areas. The day that the Hampshire TEC and the chambers of commerce of Portsmouth and Southampton contemplate a merger is so far away as to be out of sight.
I have received feedback from the business community in Hampshire, where business link is due to be launched in 1996. During the past couple of years, much effort has been expended on ensuring that we set in place effective working partnerships for the benefit of the business community of Hampshire. I have received feedback that suggests that, at times, the efforts have been plagued by shifting goalposts as the DTI's objectives change to

379
respond to the problems that it encounters in other parts of the country. I accept that the process is iterative, but that creates extra problems for the TEC which is trying to set business links in place.
The primary concern in Hampshire in the run-up to the launch of business links is its longer-term financial viability, which hon. Members touched on earlier. It is intended that, after three years of DTI pump-priming, funding should end. The DTI's view seems to be that, by that time, sponsor and partner contributions and the income generated from services will be sufficient to allow the organisation to survive independently. That might be right, but it is difficult to see where the profits will be made. Will they be made from making margins on DTI service contracts? For that to happen, the DTI will have to be happy with the level of margin made, bearing in mind the value-for-money responsibilities rightly attached to Government funding. The DTI will not want business links to make excessive profits on contracts. Will the profits come from charging customers for services, in full or in part, taking due regard to the European Union's state aid rules?
We are only too aware—I think that the DTI is learning by experience of business links elsewhere—of the reluctance of small businesses to pay for anything they do not have to pay for. Some services will continue to be funded, in part or in full, by the DTI, but that funding will not cover the costs of operating even the most cost-effective business links. The worry is that the business links network is only now beginning to confront the DTI with the reality of business plans and the likely funding gap in the fourth year of operation.
The DTI recognises that some of the assumptions of growth in income from customers are at best over-optimistic and at worst totally unrealistic. It cannot have it both ways: either such growth will occur or the DTI must be prepared either to invest more money or to allow business links to make bigger margins on publicly funded services. More realism is essential if business links is to work.
6.34 pm
Mr. Denis MacShane: I have enjoyed our debate, which has been held in a relatively uncrowded House. I particularly enjoyed the imagery of acorns and oaks used by the right hon. Member for Northavon (Sir J. Cope). The evidence on the ground in Rotherham and South Yorkshire is that the Government's support for business has remained very much at the acorn stage in terms of creating new jobs or new businesses.
I also enjoyed the honesty of the Minister for Small Business, Industry and Energy, as I think that we heard for the first time from the Government Front Bench an open admission of the dismay and shame that all hon. Members should feel at the dramatic slump in the United Kingdom's standing in world competitive league tables. We have dropped from 12th when Labour was last in office to 18th today—and we are still falling fast. Investment as a percentage of gross domestic product—along with demand, that is one of the key components for sustaining any small business culture—is about 17 per cent. compared to 23 per cent. in Australia, 25 per cent.
380
in Switzerland and 29 per cent. in Japan. The Government's lack of commitment to jobs and business is reflected in the number of small businesses that we have.
I am grateful to the Minister for a written reply that he provided to me just before Christmas in which he said that in Yorkshire and Humberside the number of VAT registrations, which is the only real measure we have for small businesses, dropped from 17,100 in 1990 to 13,300 in 1994—a slump of 25 per cent. Even taking into account the change in the VAT threshold, the Yorkshire figures show an absolute decline. The significant problem faced in South Yorkshire is the slump in small businesses.
One reason why small businesses fail to get off the ground in Rotherham and South Yorkshire is that so many organisations purport to help them. I was pleased to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche), the shadow Minister with responsibility for small businesses, draw attention to the plethora of organisations that purport to represent businesses. There are TECs, chambers of commerce and, in the industrial sector, the Engineering Employers Federation. Companies may belong to the Confederation of British Industry or they may belong to the Institute of Directors. The sum of the parts of business representation, guidance and advice never seems to add up to a convincing whole.
We have to take a special test to drive a bus, practise law or build a house. But the Minister proclaimed with pride that no test, qualification, proof of financial commitment or willingness to join an organisation that might provide guidance and help was necessary for anyone wishing to start a business. I do not wish to put hoops in the way of individuals who wish to form any sort of business, but we must look at our more successful competitor partners and be modest enough to learn from their experience.
There are 12,000 unemployed people in Rotherham and approximately 4,000 firms can be identified in the borough. The question that I continually ask myself is: how can policies be shaped allowing each firm to take on one extra employee—which would mean that unemployment in Rotherham would drop by one third—or even two extra employees? It is not a simple mechanical, arithmetical progression, but if we endeavour to help small businesses, perhaps we shall tackle the pressing problem of unemployment in my constituency and those of my hon. Friends who also represent Rotherham.
The social chapter is quite irrelevant as it expressly excludes small businesse. Low wages, however, are vital. Rotherham employment service advertises jobs paying £1.80, £2, £2.50 and £3.50 per hour. Anyone who accepts those low-paid jobs then has to be subsidised through the welfare system by the taxpayers of Rotherham. That is why the tremendous echo that is reverberating around the country was created not by Baroness Thatcher in a speech designed to divide the Conservative party, as we shall hear later tonight, but by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition in his speech on the need for a stakeholder economy. That speech was based on the idea of partnership.
The Minister for Small Business, Industry and Energy will reply to the debate. His predecessor as the Minister for acorns, now the Minister for Science and Technology, the hon. Member for Esher (Mr. Taylor), was formerly at the Department of Employment, where he poured sulphuric acid over all notions of partnership.

381
In the dynamic economies of Asia and the more successful partner competitors of Europe, partnership is built into the world of work. In Britain, even at the lowest level, there is immense ideological hostility to partnership in the workplace. That is the abiding legacy of modern Toryism. Instead of drawing on the talent, knowledge and commitment to their firm of employees through their representative organisations, we have suffered from the denial of partnership and a complete disinterest in the idea of the stakeholder economy.
During a recent visit to the Bundesbank in Germany, I was interested to discover that the strongest component element of the Bundesbank was the 4,000 co-operative banks based in the region. Representatives of those banks take the decisions that often have a great impact on our own economy, such as those on the interest rates set in Germany. There is a much stronger regional identity there and its banks and institutions are closer to the ground than our highly centralised, London-focused economy. That is why the chances of support for small business are so much better.
My hon. Friends have mentioned that the business links chain is unable to provide any help to the micro-businesses with fewer than 10 employees. Those businesses are the acorns that need fertilising, nurturing, guiding, sheltering from the sun or exposing to the rain, to continue down the metaphorical path of gardening, which is one of my favourite hobbies.
The excellent staff at business link in Rotherham are unable to provide the advice to the small firms in Rotherham that should receive backing. To reiterate the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman), they find it difficult to support innovation and invention because the destruction of the apprenticeship schemes, which are the core of successful small businesses in so many of our competitive partner countries, has produced a shortage of skilled intermediate workers—low, medium and high-tech workers.
I pay tribute to the staff of business link at Templeborough in Rotherham, which occupies a wonderful site open to inward investment. I hope that representatives of all companies here and abroad reading Hansard tomorrow will speed to Rotherham, where they will find a warm welcome.
I also pray in aid the Deputy Prime Minister, whose performance this afternoon, when he kept a straight face while commenting on his support for the former Prime Minister, Baroness Thatcher, was a remarkable example of a still-lipped rictus such as I have never seen in the House of Commons.
When the Deputy Prime Minister was President of the Board of Trade—before he was replaced in that post by an invisible kilt—he wrote to me expressing support for the merger of the Rotherham chamber of commerce and the TEC. Voting for that process is now under way and I would like to place it on record that all three Members representing Rotherham support the merger, as do the leaders of the TEC, the business community and the trade union movement in Rotherham. We hope that all relevant companies will vote in favour of the merger. It will create a successful and vibrant Chamtec, as it will be called, which, together with the Rotherham economic partnership—which includes the local authority and business link—will work to promote the interests of the people and businesses of Rotherham. In essence, there is
382
a sense of partnership and the creation in outline of a stakeholder economy and community in which everybody is invited to participate. No one is excluded for ideological reasons, as has been the case since 1979.
Labour's commitment to small businesses is clear. We are and always have been the party of the little person, in the sense of the men and women who are oppressed by stronger, more authoritarian, richer and more powerful elements in our society. We are also placing ourselves closely in common cause with the interests of small business in Rotherham and throughout the country.
6.46 pm
Mr. Page: With the leave of the House, I shall make a few comments in reply to the debate, which has been helpful and supportive. I welcome some of the words of the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche). I was not surprised that she claimed business link as a Labour idea. Labour has tried to pinch, beg and borrow practically all our other clothes, and this will be no exception, so its attempts to acquire business link as part of Labour party policy is no surprise.
I am not quite so sure about Labour's latest claims. The stakeholder gimmick sounds more like a return to the minimum wage, the social chapter and more trade union rights—but that would be moving away from the purpose of the debate.
When the hon. Lady has a chance to review her speech, she will note that she made very little allowance for the fact that many of the business links are freshly formed and still feeling their way. I wonder whether anybody working up a new business link will find encouragement and understanding in her words.
The hon. Lady's criticism of London is grossly unfair. She is obviously not aware that business links are not yet open throughout the capital and the overarching central link for London is still not fully in place. Therefore, I am not surprised that she did not receive the immediate, quality service that should be available when everything is in place.
The hon. Lady is absolutely correct about the consultancy brokerage service. It was an attempt to provide an unified listing service on a national basis. It was conceived with all the best of intentions, but when I took up my present post it was obvious that business links were planning that service on a regional basis. I am sure that the hon. Lady would not want me to pursue and continue a scheme that the business links did not wish to see operate.
Mrs. Roche: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way and I am interested in what he said about the consultancy brokerage service. My point was not that more public money should have been allocated but that the Minister or his predecessor should have taken responsibility for the decision, rather than blaming the press for its demise and the loss of almost £3 million in public money.
Mr. Page: I can say little other than reiterate that I have taken responsibility for that decision. When I assumed my current post, I said that the scheme would not receive the support of all the business links and that therefore it should be closed. That is exactly what we did, and I cannot follow the hon. Lady's logic.

383
The hon. Lady also made great play of a conspiracy theory regarding the internal audit report. The Department of Trade and Industry informed the commission about the pilot project and later informed the commission that we were working up a fully fledged scheme. It was believed to be important to sustain the momentum of the development of the business network while awaiting the commission's formal approval, which I understand came through on 6 September 1994.
I turn now to the comments of the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman), who has explained to me that he meant no discourtesy in disappearing from the Chamber, as he had a pressing engagement. I was very grateful for his contribution to the debate and I agreed with much of what he said. I thought he adopted a very positive approach to business link. In teasing him about his contribution—I hope that he will read my remarks in Hansard—I shall not comment on his attempts to rewrite history. However, I agree with him—and I return to my opening remarks—that we must have quality. He has obviously recognised fully the speed at which a business link can lose its good reputation with the local business community, and I am also only too well aware of that fact.
What can I say to my right hon. Friend the Member for Northavon (Sir J. Cope)? He is a previous and most successful small business Minister and he has forgotten more about the small business scene than I shall ever know. I can only recommend that hon. Members read his words again and again, because they are wise, knowledgeable and skilful.
I thank the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey) for his support. He is correct to draw attention to the future financing of business link. The Government have given a commitment for the three-year programme and we shall look beyond that when the time comes. I am convinced that there must be some element of charging. However, as we can see from the support programmes, more than £100 million will be available in 1998–99 from the Department of Trade and Industry for services.
The comment was made that small business people do not like to make any payment unless they have to do so. I understand that, but if business link can establish a reputation for quality and for being a sensible investment for small business to make, I believe that people will be prepared to contribute to making their businesses even more viable and profitable.
384
I acknowledge what the hon. Member for Eastleigh said about Northampton; however, I am conscious of the fact that in this Chamber there is someone, in the form of our Deputy Speaker, who has vast knowledge, skill and influence with regard to the merger to which the hon. Gentleman referred.
I am glad that the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) supported business link once again. He managed to plug his constituency business link in Rotherham and he referred to the merger between the training and enterprise council and the chamber of commerce. I leave it to the local partners to identify how unified delivery of service to business men and women in the area can be best achieved.
I shall not follow the hon. Gentleman by making international comparisons, as I could spend a considerable time pointing to the huge success of inward investment in this country: hundreds of thousands of jobs have been created and we now have one of the lowest unemployment rates in the European Union. However, that would be contentious and I would hate to introduce a discordant note at this stage of the debate. I take on board the fact that there must be support services for the micro-business. Obviously, micro-businesses grow into small and then medium-sized businesses. Huge, successful businesses that have developed from a standing start are few and far between.
I am glad that there is broad consensus in the House about the issue. It must be a good idea when every party claims credit for introducing and developing it. However, I must point out that it is this Government who have put business links in place. On a serious note, business links face formidable challenges. It will need the commitment of all the partners, political parties and customers in order to spread the word. As I understand it, the message from the House tonight is, "Well done so far. We look forward to seeing business links achieve so much more in the future."
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ordered,
That, at the sitting on Wednesday 17th January, the Speaker shall put the Questions on the Motions in the name of Mr. Secretary Lilley relating to draft Regulations on Social Security not later than Seven o'clock.—[Mr. Brandreth.]

Hospitals (North-west Kent)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Brandreth.]
6.56 pm
Mr. Bob Dunn: I am delighted to have secured the Adjournment debate this evening on the subject of hospital provision in north-west Kent as it gives me the opportunity to reaffirm my determination to help to bring about the construction of a new, all-purpose, state-of-the-art general hospital in Dartford by the end of the decade. The new hospital will serve the interests and health needs of the people of north-west Kent well into the next century.
The Minister will know that the journey to this point has been troubled in the past, but it now appears that the hospital will become a reality, with the consent of all levels of Government and all levels of the national health service. For the benefit of the House, I must explain that the changes that are taking place in north-west Kent in the context of development within the Thames gateway strengthen the case for the new district general hospital as we debate health care in and for the next century.
Conservative Members who take a strong interest in health matters in north-west Kent are fully aware of the firm but sure steps that have been, and are being, taken along the path towards new build. Not for us the manipulation and incorrect usage of the A and B lists as issued by the private finance initiative sector and not for us the shroud waving of the Labour party: we are determined to get things done. It is interesting to note that, despite Labour's huffing and puffing, not a single Labour Member is present in the Chamber tonight to listen to and participate in this important debate.
As a matter of public record, I seek an assurance from the Minister, whom I welcome most heartily to the Dispatch Box, that his Department will ensure that the timetable for the construction of the new hospital is not allowed to slip. Will the Minister assure me that the involvement and interrelationship of the private sector through the private finance initiative is working satisfactorily and that the objectives that the private sector need to see fulfilled are, in themselves, sufficient reward to retain that sector's interest now and in the future? There may well be a need for the involvement of public funds alongside private funding and that would be a sufficient lever for the project in Dartford to come to fruition. I also hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will assure me that the evaluation of the project will be carried out speedily and effectively by Whitehall Departments so that there is no delay whatever to the timetable. I hope that he will be able to mention the timetable in his reply.
It is essential that my constituents in Dartford have an understanding of the progress made so far, and the progress that needs to be made in the future, if the project is to happen by the end of the century. It is worth placing on record the fact that we will have in Dartford, in north-west Kent, a huge range of diverse developments that will make the construction of the new district general hospital more essential.
Perhaps at this point I may pay tribute, not only to the work of my local authority and the leader of the Conservative group, Councillor Kenneth Leadbeater, but to the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham
386
(Mr. Arnold). He has worked with me in the trenches to secure our objective. I must also pay tribute to the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Mr. Wolfson) who has battled with us shoulder to shoulder on this issue.
During the next three years, the new station and its associated infrastructure will be developed at Ebbsfleet for the channel tunnel rail link. Bluewater park, which is a little closer to the centre of north Dartford, will generate many thousands of work opportunities for the people of south London and Kent. We have a huge programme of house building over the next 10 to 20 years, with a range of houses to suit all needs. I know that I sound like an estate agent.
Those changes will bring new residents and new workers, and people will come into north Kent for leisure purposes. The burden on the health service will be immense. We cannot expect a health structure that was developed largely in the last century, for purposes which were relevant and germane then, to be available to support the needs for health care of my constituents in the 21st century.
I hope that there will be no doubt after this debate of my commitment and my hon. Friend's commitment to the construction of the new district hospital. The determination of the Department of Health to support us means that the different interests will come together to ensure that we have new district general hospital in Dartford very soon. I am most grateful to the Minister for coming here tonight and I look forward with interest to hearing his remarks.
7.2 pm
Mr. Jacques Arnold: In the nine years that I have served as Member for Gravesham, one of the highest priorities for my constituents has been the replacement of our hospital facilities. My hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn) has served Dartford for much longer and the replacement of our hospital provision has also been a high priority for him.
As my hon. Friend said, we depend now on three old hospitals that have served the area well since the last century. The need for a new hospital has always been clear, but the problem has been the cost of some £100 million, and it has been a daunting job for Ministers in the Department of Health to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer for a cheque for that amount. That is why, year after year, we have not got our hospital.
I am now absolutely delighted with the Government's new private finance initiative, which will bring private capital and expertise to ensure that we can enjoy the hospital that our constituents in north-west Kent have always deserved. I take great encouragement from the fact that there are four consortia composed of great household names bidding for the opportunity to build the hospital for local people.
I remind the Minister that there are two parts to the project. By far the greatest is the provision of the new district general hospital at Darenth park, but the provision of a community hospital is also of great concern to the people of Gravesend. At the moment, approximately one third of our general hospital provision is provided at the Gravesend and North Kent hospital in Gravesend, which is very close to the hearts of my constituents.

387
The conurbation of Gravesend and Northfleet and the surrounding villages like Meopham and Istead Rise, and Longfield in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford, contain some 100,000 people. Clearly, basic hospital provision is necessary. Therefore, I am very encouraged by the intention of the Dartford and Gravesham NHS trust and the other trusts, especially the Thameslink Healthcare Services NHS trust, to use the Gravesend and North Kent site to provide a community hospital at a cost of about £8.5 million.
I hope that the Minister will be able to assure us that he has in his sights the need to provide finance, through the private finance initiative, for the follow-through. We will need a community hospital in Gravesend, when the general hospital provision—mostly maternity—departs from Gravesend and North Kent hospital to our brand new hospital in Darenth park.
7.6 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. John Horam): May I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn) on his success and his luck in securing this debate? I gather it was because another hon. Member had to withdraw his subject and therefore my hon. Friend could bring forward his subject. We are having this debate at a rather more timely hour than could perhaps have been foreseen.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dartford has always been a stalwart supporter of local health services, and I am very pleased to be able to respond to his comments about hospital provision in the Dartford and Gravesham area. He has spoken eloquently about the need for improved hospital services in the area, and makes very good points which I have listened to carefully.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) also spoke and I also know of his commitment and enthusiasm over the years to his hospital services. I note also his support, not only for the new hospital proposed at Dartford, but for the follow-through, as he put it, that is so important to Gravesham—the new community hospital—which we hope will follow on from the main hospital.
Acute services in the area, as we know, are provided by Dartford and Gravesham NHS trust and are spread across three hospitals—Joyce Green, West Hill, and Gravesend and North Kent hospital. The latter, I believe, is known colloquially as the GNK. The main acute hospital is Joyce Green which dates from Victorian times. While those hospitals have served the local population extremely well over the years, they are clearly no longer well suited to the delivery of modern health care. They would need significant investment to remain in use in the longer term.
At present, accident and emergency services are located at West Hill hospital in central Dartford, along with trauma and orthopaedics. General medical, elderly and surgical services are provided from Joyce Green, while maternity and gynaecology are based at Gravesend and North Kent hospital. The difficulties of that three-way split are readily apparent. My hon. Friend the Member for Dartford has often made that point. Not only do patients frequently need to be transferred between sites, but the arrangement also creates practical staffing difficulties.
388
Despite operating from relatively poor buildings, the trust provides a full range of excellent health services, to the considerable credit of its 2,000 doctors, nurses and other staff who work for the trust. I am sure that my hon. Friends appreciate the work that the staff have done despite the inadequacy of the buildings in which they work.
The trust treated about 164,000 patients in 1994–95, and it expects to treat a remarkable 10 per cent. more during this year. That is excellent news for my hon. Friends' constituents, who will also be heartened to know that waiting times have been substantially reduced. The trust expects to have no over-12-month waiters by the end of March; the number of over-12-month waiters fell from more than 400 in February to no more than 69 in September of this year. That is a remarkable improvement and a great credit to all concerned.
More evidence of improving performance is to be found in the NHS performance tables. The trust achieved an impressive five 5-star rankings in 1994–95, including assessment of A and E services—four more than the previous year. Well over half of all the trust's elective surgery is now carried out on a day case basis.
As my hon. Friends pointed out, various proposals for a new hospital were made during the 1980s, but it was not until 1994 that a scheme appearing to be really viable emerged. It would not be helpful this evening to rehearse the discussions that took place in the intervening years; but people's expectations of a new hospital were raised, only to be disappointed. I can therefore understand the frustration felt by all concerned—local residents, hospital staff, my hon. Friends who have campaigned tirelessly and other hon. Members.
Although I can give no guarantees, there is now much more than a chink of light at the end of the tunnel. Dartford is clearly closer than ever before to getting its new hospital. For good reasons to which I shall come in a minute it is necessary for the trust to explore private finance for the scheme. In that respect it is making excellent progress. In June 1995 the trust was granted approval to test the scheme to provide a new general hospital under the private finance initiative. It advertised the scheme in the Official Journal of the European Communities on 5 September; following a pre-qualification exercise, four consortia, representing a good selection of the major players, were selected—as my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham pointed out.
The short-listed consortia have been issued with a draft contract, service level agreements and other documentation, and have been invited to submit their detailed proposals by the end of January. Following evaluation, the trust will select two candidates with which to renegotiate detailed contracts. Further negotiations will follow and the trust will select a preferred partner, probably this summer. It will then submit a full business case for approval to the NHS executive. On present plans I expect it to be forthcoming this autumn.
The overall process is as short and efficient as it can be, consistent with ensuring that value for money and the requirements of public accountability are achieved. If all goes to plan, building work should begin during the first half of 1997—that is the present supposition.
I can assure my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford that the project has the full support of all concerned—at authority level, regional level, NHS executive level and

389
Government level. I can assure him also that the evaluation will be carried out as speedily as possible in Whitehall, so there will be no delays at our end. The speed will of course depend on the detailed progress of negotiations between the selected consortia and the local hospital trust. I cannot guarantee how quickly or slowly they will proceed, but I know of no reason why they should not maintain their present rate of progress.
The scheme would create a new acute general hospital with up to 400 beds, an accident and emergency department and a full range of services on the proposed Darenth Park site. The new hospital would replace the hospitals at West Hill and Joyce Green and the Gravesend and North Kent hospital.
The GNK hospital will be transferred to Thameslink Healthcare NHS trust and be converted to a community hospital. I emphasise that it will be a large community hospital—the plans for it are quite ambitious. I can well understand the enthusiasm of my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham for the project, and I can assure him that the plans to take it forward will be finalised as quickly as possible, consistent with progress on the scheme for the main hospital. I hope that the follow-through will be quick, but it will depend on progress at the main hospital.
390
West Kent health authority is responsible for identifying the health needs of all its residents, including the people of Dartford and Gravesham, and for ensuring that those needs are met. The health authority supports the proposed new hospital. As the main purchaser of Dartford and Gravesham trust's services, it is in its interests to see that the trust provides services of the highest quality as cost-effectively as possible.
The planned allocation for West Kent for 1996–97 is £369 million, an increase of no less than £9.4 million, or 2.7 per cent., on this year after taking account of inflation. I refer here to the running costs of the health services in the area. That considerable improvement should be of immediate benefit to my hon. Friends' constituents.
The people of Dartford and Gravesham are now closer than ever to getting a new acute hospital, with the trust at an advanced stage of the PFI process. As my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham pointed out, the plans include not just a new acute general hospital but a community hospital too. All this is excellent news for my hon. Friends and their constituents.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at fifteen minutes past Seven o'clock.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  European Union
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what communication he has received from(a) the Commission of the European Community and (b) the Government of any of its member states concerning those matters of common interest listed in article K1 of the treaty on European Union; what proposals he has received for conventions under the provisions of article K3 2(c); and what (i) material and (ii) information he has published relating thereto. [8254]

  Mr. Howard
  The Commission, which has a limited right of initiative under article K3(2) of the treaty on European union, has issued three communications to the Council of Ministers concerning matters of common interest under article K1. These related to immigration and asylum policies, a European Union action plan to combat drugs and the possible application of article K9 of the treaty. The Commission has also submitted proposals for a Council decision establishing the convention on the crossing of the external frontiers of the member states and for a convention on the protection of the Communities' financial interests.

  Member states enjoy the right to initiate action in all the areas of common interest listed in article K1 and regularly make proposals for specific measures or projects in the Justice and Home Affairs Council and its associated working groups. The Council of Ministers has adopted conventions on simplified extradition procedures, fraud, Europol and the customs information system. Draft instruments currently under negotiation by the member states include: the convention on external frontiers and the associated convention on the European information system; a second stage convention on simplified extradition procedures; and a convention on mutual recognition of driving disqualifications.

  Any proposal or communication from the Commission to the Council of Ministers is deposited in Parliament. In accordance with the procedures for scrutiny of European Community documents, the Government publish an explanatory memorandum for each document deposited. Proposals arising from intergovernmental co-operation on justice and home affairs under title VI of the treaty are subject to the separate arrangements for Parliamentary scrutiny of work which apply to that title.

  Surinder Singh Judgment
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will make a statement on the additional entitlements of European nationals to bring relatives into the EU and the UK in consequence of the Surinder Singh judgment in the European Court; and if he will publish a booklet explaining the situation; [8521]
  276
  (2) what are the implications of the Surinder Singh case in the European Court in so far as the immigration law and the primary purpose rule are concerned; and what estimate has been made of the numbers of persons who have taken advantage of the implications of the judgment. [8522]

  Miss Widdecombe
  Nationals of the other member states of the European Economic Area are free to come to the United Kingdom with their close family members to exercise rights conferred under the provisions of the treaty of Rome relating to the free movement of workers and rights of residence.

  Those rights were not affected by the Surinder Singh judgment, delivered by the European Court of Justice in July 1992. The effect of that judgment is that where a British citizen returns to the United Kingdom after exercising treaty rights in an economic capacity in another member state, his or her third-country national spouse and other close family members are entitled to enter and reside in the United Kingdom under European Community law.

  In giving effect to the judgment, we require that the British citizen must have exercised substantive treaty rights in another member state, normally for a period of at least six months, as a worker or in another economically active capacity; those who resided abroad as tourists or students, for example, do not qualify. The primary purpose rule does not apply but the application is refused if the marriage is one of convenience. If the marriage ends in divorce, or if the British citizen goes abroad, the third-country spouse will no longer have a right to reside here under European Community law.

  Since the judgment was delivered, we have received 73 applications based on it, of which 59 have been granted.

  Europol Convention
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what drafts of the Europol convention concerning the establishment and powers of a European police office were(a) published by Her Majesty's Government and (b) sent to police authorities or their representative organisations; what outline (i) proposals and (ii) drafts were sent to select committees of both Houses of Parliament; when the convention was signed and by whom on behalf of the United Kingdom; and which drafts were considered at ministerial meetings and on what occasions. [8303]

  Mr. Howard
  [holding answer 9 January 1996]: The final text of the Europol convention was published, and laid before Parliament, on 8 December last year. Drafts of the convention were not public documents and therefore were not published nor made generally available. The police service were closely consulted throughout the negotiation of the convention through police representative organisations.

  An explanatory note on the draft convention was submitted on 22 February 1994. Supplementary explanatory notes, with revised drafts of the convention, were provided on 17 November 1994 and on 31 May 1995. The final text of the convention, together with an accompanying explanatory note, was forwarded on 28 July last year.
  277
  Various aspects of the negotiation of the Europol convention were discussed at meetings of the Justice and Home Affairs Council between late 1993 and 1995, but specific drafts of the convention were not considered in detail.

  Agreement was reached in principle to the terms of the convention at the European Council meeting at Cannes in June 1995. The convention was subsequently signed on 26 July by Mr. David Bostock, the United Kingdom's deputy permanent representative to the European Union.

  South Yorkshire Constabulary (Charges)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if the South Yorkshire constabulary charge for the police safe scheme and similar services. [8415]

  Mr. Maclean
  I understand that South Yorkshire police do not charge for the keyholder list services which they provide.

  Doncaster Prison
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list by month since Doncaster prison was opened the number of people detained under immigration powers and held at the prison, indicating from what countries the detainees originally came. [8053]

  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. Martin Redmond, dated 11 January 1996:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about immigration detainees held at Doncaster prison.
  The number of detainees held at Doncaster are listed by month in the attached table, together with the countries of origin.

  List of detainees held at Doncaster

  Month

  Number

  Country of origin.

  June 1994

  Nil

  —

  July 1994

  Nil

  —

  August 1994

  Nil

  —

  September 1994

  Nil

  —

  October 1994

  Nil

  —

  November 1994

  Nil

  —

  December 1994

  Nil

  —

  January 1995

  1

  Malaya

  February 1995

  1

  Malaya

  March 1995

  1

  Malaya

  April 1995

  1

  Malaya

  May 1995

  2

  Malaya/Jamaica

  June 1995

  3

  Malaya/Jamaica/Colombia

  July 1995

  3

  Malaya/Jamaica/Colombia

  August 1995

  3

  Malaya/Jamaica/Colombia

  September 1995

  4

  Malaya/Jamaica/Colombia

  October 1995

  6

  Malaya/Jamaica/Colombia/India

  November 1995

  5

  Jamaica/Colombia/India

  December 1995

  4

  Jamaica/Colombia/India

  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many prisoners were transferred from Doncaster prison in each month since it has been opened, indicating the reason for the transfer in 278
  each case, and the name of the prison to which the transfer was made; [8051]

  (2) how many prisoners were transferred to Doncaster prison in each month since it has been opened, indicating the reason for the transfer in each case, and the name of the prison to which the transfer was made. [8052]

  Miss Widdecombe
  Responsibility for these matters 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. Martin Redmond, dated 11 January 1996:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Questions about transfers in and out of Doncaster prison since it opened.
  There are around 2,500 prisoner movements into and out of Doncaster each month. This information could therefore be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Winson Green Prison
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what has been the average occupancy at Winson Green prison in each of the last five years; [7954]

  (2) what has been the average prison officer establishment at Winson Green prison in each of the last five years. [7955]

  Miss Widdecombe
  Responsibility for these matters 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 A. J. Pearson to Dr. Lynne Jones, dated 11 January 1996:
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Questions about the average prisoner population and the average number of prison officers at Birmingham prison in each of the last five years.
  The average prisoner population over the last five years is shown in table one, attached.
  The average number of officers working in each of the last five years is given in table two.

  Table 1

  Year

  Average prisoner population

  1991

  956

  1992

  911

  1993

  793

  1994

  752

  19951

  839

  1 until end November.

  Table 2

  Year

  Number of discipline officers

  Discipline officers plus miscellaneous officers such as trades and catering officers

  1991

  364

  448

  1992

  378

  461

  1993

  372

  454

  279

  Table 2

  Year

  Number of discipline officers

  Discipline officers plus miscellaneous officers such as trades and catering officers

  1994

  345

  425

  1995

  348

  429

  The figure for 1991 are not exact as the method of recording the information at that time was not completely reliable.

  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the total cost of running Winson Green prison in each of the last five years at(a) actual prices and (b) current prices; and what are the budgets for 1995–96 and 1996–97. [7956]

  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 Dr. Lynne Jones, dated 11 January 1996:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the cost of running Birmingham prison.
  The total net operating costs for the years 1990–91 to 1994–95 at actual and current prices and the present budget for 1995–96 are set out in the attached table. The budget for 1996–97 has not yet been decided.

  Financial year

  Actual prices £ million

  1995–96 prices £ million

  1990–91

  14.9

  17.7

  1991–92

  16.9

  18.9

  1992–93

  17.7

  19.1

  1993–94

  15.7

  16.4

  1994–95

  16.1

  16.5

  1995–96

  16.8

  16.8

  The costs for the years 1990–91 to 1992–93 are calculated on a different basis to later years in that they include notional charges for opportunity cost of rent and depreciation.

  Probation Committees
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consultations are undertaken before appointments are made to local probation committees. [7951]

  Mr. Sackville
  The majority of probation committee members are magistrates, elected by their benches. Where committees choose to co-opt members of the local community it is for them to decide how to do so: many committees place public advertisements to attract people with suitable interests and experience. Where committees co-opt members of local authorities, as they are required to do in metropolitan areas and may decide to do elsewhere, they should consult the authorities concerned about the appointments.

  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how local probation committees are accountable to their communities. [7948]

  Mr. Sackville
  Local probation committees are responsible to their communities through the management of services: by the publication of Her Majesty's inspection reports, annual reports and by an obligation under national standards to liaise closely with local communities.

  Risley Prison
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he plans to implement the recommendation of Her Majesty's chief inspector of prisons into the women's prison at Risley in respect of the women's health care centre. [8176]

  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 A. J. Pearson to Mr. Doug Hoyle, dated 11 January 1996:
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question about the provision of a new female health care centre at Risley prison.
  The recommendation by HM Chief Inspector of Prisons that a new health care centre for women be provided at Risley was accepted. But no promises could be given about the timing of this new provision. This will depend on the redevelopment programme at Risley and on money for new buildings being available.
  There are no funds presently earmarked for this scheme but it will continue to be considered alongside other schemes when money is allocated.
  The Chief Inspector's most recent report on Risley (the report of an unannounced visit) was published in November 1995. No special mention was made of health care provision for women.

  Prisons (Allocation of Sexes)
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to discourage the practice of allocating women to wings of male prisons. [8257]

  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. Doug Hoyle, dated 11 January 1996:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about the practice of allocating women to wings of male prisons.
  The Prison Service is currently developing a strategy for the future provision of female places. This strategy will be reported to the Home Secretary in the spring of this year.
  At present 314 women are held in units at five male prisons. These prisons provide a total of 344 places in areas with a specific shortage of female provision. The current female provision at male establishments allows women to be kept closer to their home areas.
  The accommodation provided at these establishments enables female prisoners to be housed in dedicated units on a shared site with distinct access to particular prison facilities.

  Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people lost eligibility for compensation in respect of the death of a relative under the 1994 criminal injuries compensation scheme when the CICB scheme was re-introduced; and what has been the saving to public funds. [8161]

  Mr. Maclean
  The eligibility of a claimant for compensation can be determined only by reference to the individual circumstances of the case in the light of the relevant scheme. In the great majority of cases where an application was made in respect of a fatal case under the
  281
  former tariff scheme, the claimants' eligibility for payment had not been determined when that scheme was withdrawn.

  Information on numbers of applications for fatal awards under the tariff scheme, the relationship between the applicant and the victim in those cases, and payments made, was contained in answers given to the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) on 28 November 1995, Official Report, columns 652–53.

  New Hall Prison
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many additional inmate places he expects will be available for use by the end of 1996 at Her Majesty's prison New Hall, Wakefield. [8329]

  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. Martin Redmond, dated 11 January 1996:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about New Hall prison.
  The Prison Service has no plans at present to increase the number of places at New Hall by the end of 1996.

  Probation Staff
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will list those prisons which have made probation staff redundant over the last year; and if he will make a statement; [7387]

  (2) if he will make a statement in respect of those prisons which have reduced (a) sex offenders and (b) drug treatment programmes over the last year; and if he will make a statement; [7388]

  (3) what reductions in probation work, including courses dealing with offending behaviour, have been made at (a) Winchester, (b) Birmingham and (c) Little Hey prisons; and if he will make a statement. [7389]

  Miss Widdecombe
  Responsibility for these matters 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 A. J. Pearson to Mr. Alan Beith, dated 11 January 1996:
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Questions about redundancies among prison-based probation officers; reductions in prison sex offender and drug treatment programmes and reductions in prison probation work at Winchester, Birmingham and Littlehey prisons during the last year.
  No prisons have made probation staff redundant. Probation officers work in prison establishments on secondment from their home probation services. They remain subject to the conditions of service of their local Probation Committee.
  Detailed information about treatment programmes for drug misusers in individual prisons is not held centrally but every prison must develop a local strategy to reduce the supply and demand for drugs, to rehabilitate drug misusers and to minimise the potential for damage to the health of prisoners, staff and the wider community.
  282
  With the exception of Littlehey prison, there has been no reduction in sex offender programmes at any prison and there has been no reduction in probation work at Winchester or Birmingham. At Littlehey, probation staff, with uniformed staff, lead sex-offender treatment programmes. A combination of factors including sick leave and staff changes led to the cancellation of some sex offender treatment sessions during the summer.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what criteria he will use for determining whether an upheaval has taken place in a country for the purposes of determining whether asylum seekers claiming after entry into the United Kingdom should qualify for income support; and which countries he assesses to be currently undergoing such an upheaval. [7400]

  Miss Widdecombe
  My right hon. and learned Friend will notify the Benefits Agency if a country undergoes a fundamental change in circumstances such that people are not normally being required to return to it for the time being. Each upheaval will be separately assessed and a judgment made as to whether people should be required to return. This assessment will be based on the latest available relevant information from a wide range of sources.

  Internet
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what web site his Department maintains on the Internet; what information is provided there; how often it is updated; what is the address; and if he or his Department answers questions and supplies additional information through the Internet. [7570]

  Mr. Howard
  My Department does not maintain its own World Wide Web site on the Internet, but uses(a) the electronic news distribution service of the Central Office of Information for the publication of press releases on the web, and (b) the web site known as the Central Computer and Telecommunications Agency Government information service, maintained by CCTA—the Government centre for information systems—for other information. My Department does not yet have its wwn home page, but has four separate presences on the web as follows:
  (a) Press release
  (address-http://www.coi.gov.uk/coi/depts/GHO/GHO.html)
  (b) Research & Statistics Department, for publication of statistics which are also published in conventional form
  address-http://www.open.gov.uk/home_off/rsdhome.htm)
  (c) United Kingdom Passport Agency, for general information about passports and passport offices
  (address-http://www.open.gov.uk/ukpass/ukpass.htm)
  (d) Immigration & Nationality Department, for general information about immigration and nationality
  (address-http://www.open.gov.uk/coi/ind.htm).

  Press releases and statistics are published as they are published on paper. Information from the United Kingdom Passport Agency and the immigration and nationality department is updated as necessary. Neither I nor my Department at present uses the Internet for answering questions or supplying additional information.

  Prison Service Staff
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prison service staff were employed, by category and in total in each of the last five years for which figures are available. [7369]

  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 A. J. Pearson to Mr. Alex Carlile, dated 11 January 1996:
  The Home Secretary has asked me, in the absence of the Director General from the office, to reply to your recent Question requesting information about the number and category of staff employed by the Prison Service in each of the last five years.
  The attached tables, copies of which will be placed in the Library of the House, are based on information held in the personnel information computer system. They show the total Prison Service staff, broken down by grade and gender, at the beginning of each financial year since 1990, except for 1991 where the 1 April figure is unavailable and so the figure for 1 October has bee used instead.

  Mr. Clive Broomfield
  Mrs. Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to be able to answer the hon. Member for Lewisham, East's letters of 284
  19 July, 2 October and 1 November on behalf of Mr. Clive Bromfield. [6921]

  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 Mr. Richard Tilt to Ms Bridget Prentice, dated 11 January 1996:
  The Home Secretary has asked me to reply to your recent Question about when you will receive full replies to your earlier letters on behalf of Mr. Clive Bromfield.
  Your letters were passed to me for answer as I have operational responsibility for the Prison Service. I hope to be able to send a full reply shortly.

  National Lottery
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the awards made to charities in Worcestershire from national lottery funds; and what is the size of the grant and total project cost in each case. [6132]

  Mr. Sackville
  I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him by my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for National Heritage on 9 January 1996,Official Report, column 61. This includes details of the grants given by the National Lottery Charities Board to charities and voluntary groups based in Worcestershire.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Civil Service Management Functions
  Dr. Spink
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what delegations have been made in 1995 under the Civil Service (Management Functions) Act 1992; to whom those delegations were made; and what were the main conditions that were attached to them. [8645]

  Mr. Freeman
  The table lists delegations made under the Civil Service (Management Functions) Act 1992 since the last report to Parliament,Official Report, 11 January 1995, col. 140. In some cases, for staff appointed by statutory office holders, Ministers were statutorily required to give consent to terms and conditions of service. For such staff, delegation has been effected by waiving that requirement, subject to the conditions attached to the delegation.

  List of delegations made in 1995 under The Civil Service (Management Functions) Act 1992

  Delegation

  Nature of delegation

  Recipients

  Main conditions

  1. Delegation

  Authority to

  Ministers in

  (i) The

  of pay and

  determine pay

  charge of

  recipient must

  Certain

  and certain

  departments

  continue to

  conditions of

  pay-related

  for the

  comply with

  service.

  conditions of

  following

  certain sections

  service of civil

  organisations:

  of the Civil

  servants below

  Child Support

  Service

  the new Senior

  Agency

  Management

  Civil Service.

  Government

  Code.

  The pay and

  Communications

  (ii) Changes

  Certain

  Headquarters,

  made to terms

  pay-related

  Highways

  and conditions

  conditions of

  Agency,

  must provide

  service of

  Historic

  value for

  Agency Chief

  Scotland,

  money and be

  Executives are

  Intervention

  made in a way

  also excluded

  Board for

  which does not

  from the scope

  Agricultural

  jeopardise

  of the

  Produce

  essential public

  delegations.

  Meat Hygiene

  expenditure

  Service

  safeguards.

  Paymaster

  Service

  Children's

  Schools (North

  West Europe)

  War Pensions

  Agency

  Previous service—wide delegations extended to other organisations in 1995

  Delegation

  Recipients

  1. Travel; Overseas Accountable Entertainment Allowance; relocation expenses; rent for key staff who occupy government owned residential properties; boarding school allowance.

  Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service Health and Safety Executive Health and Safety Commission (in respect of staff appointed by Health and Safety Executive)

  2. Rent for key staff who occupy government owned residential properties; boarding school allowance.

  Central Statistical Office

  286

  Previous service—wide delegations extended to other organisations in 1995

  Delegation

  Recipients

  3. Minimum recruitment criteria; travel; overseas accountable entertainment allowance; relocation expenses; rent for key staff who occupy government owned residential properties; boarding school allowance; recruitment and retention allowance; and recruitment and retention allowances for staff overseas.

  Office of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration and Health Service Commissioner

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  House Library Department
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, representing the House of Commons Commission, what consideration the House of Commons Commission has given to the proposal of the Information Committee regarding the name of the House Library Department; and if he will make a statement. [7985]

  Mr. Beith
  At its last meeting, the Commission considered a proposal to change the name of the Department of the House of Commons Library to that of the House of Commons Library and Research Department. After careful consideration, and taking account of the advice of the Information Committee and of the high reputation of the House of Commons Library, the Commission decided against the change in name.

  Upper Waiting Hall Exhibitions
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee if he has considered an application for an exhibition relating to "Schizophrenia-Fear, Fact or Fiction" to be displayed in the Upper Waiting Hall. [8555]

  Mr. Michael J. Martin
  I understand that, under procedures agreed by the Administration Committee, arrangements have been made for the exhibition to be held in the Upper Waiting Hall from Monday 25 March to Friday 29 March 1996.

ENVIRONMENT

  Docklands Light Railway
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has made it a condition of any applications for privatisation, ownership or operation of the docklands light railway that(a) fare levels are the same as for London Underground Ltd., (b) it will remain part of the London public transport zone scheme, (c) zone-period passes will remain valid at London fare levels and (d) the pensioners'pass scheme will continue for this line. [8249]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The Government's policy is that the docklands light railway will continue to participate in
  287
  the London public transport zone scheme and to participate in the joint through-ticketing arrangements, including Travelcard, when its operations and management are franchised to a private sector operator later this year. Passengers should therefore, as now, be able to use the full range of London-wide tickets on the DLR at the same prices as on London Underground. The DLR currently sets its own fares for DLR-only journeys and this will also continue after franchising. The DLR takes part in the London boroughs concessionary travel scheme and offers pensioners and others free travel, as on London Underground. Our policy is that this should continue, subject to funds continuing to be available from the boroughs.

  Docklands Light Railway 1992–93 to 1995–96

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  11995–96

  (a)

  the number of train miles in service

  0.69 million

  0.65 million

  1.05 million

  1.24 million

  (b)

  the number of passenger miles travelled

  20 million

  24 million

  37 million

  46 million

  (c)

  (i) the operating cost per train mile

  £28.0

  £29.3

  £23.2

  £18.1

  (ii) the operating cost per passenger mile

  £0.95

  £0.79

  £0.62

  £0.48

  (d)

  the subsidy per passenger mile

  £0.77

  £0.60

  £0.43

  £0.27

  (e)

  the percentage of non-capital costs received from passengers and London pooled income.

  23 per cent.

  24 per cent.

  30 per cent.

  42 per cent.

  1 Estimate outturn figures

  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the capital investment, at constant prices, including additional costs arising from adjustment to control or signalling systems, for each phase of construction of the docklands light railway and the estimated cost of its extension to Lewisham together with the contributions to that capital expenditure not originating from public funds, stating their respective sources. [8248]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The capital cost of the docklands light railway, at constant 1995 prices is as follows:

  Initial railway: £90 million

  Extension to Bank and upgrading: £295 million

  Extension to Beckton: £280 million

  Resignalling/improvements: £56 million

  Prime contract: £30 million

  Total: £751 million

  Olympia and York made a contribution of £95 million at 1995 prices to the Bank extension and Canary Wharf station. The extension of the DLR to Lewisham will be built as a joint venture under the Government's private finance initiative at a cost of over £100 million. The amount of private sector investment will be established following the tendering exercise now under way.

  New Unitary Authorities
  Mr. Chris Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the last date on which orders must be placed for the establishment of new unitary authorities so that elections can take place on 2 May. [8625]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  There is no strict requirement to lay a structural change order by a particular date. However, where there is to be reorganisation, it is our
  288
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give for each year of the operation of the docklands light railway,(a) the number of train miles in service, (b) the number of passenger miles travelled, (c) the cost (i) per train mile and (ii) per passenger mile of all costs other than capital for construction, (d) the subsidy per passenger mile and (e) the percentage of non-capital costs received from passengers and London pooled income. [8250]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The following table sets out the relevant statistics on the docklands light railway from 1 April 1992, when the Secretary of State for the Environment took on responsibility for the railway:

  policy that there should be full elections to the future unitary authority the year before the transfer of responsibilities. As a result, given the requirements governing the publication of the notice of election in the Local Elections (Principal Areas) Rules 1986 along the administrative needs of the returning officer, we consider that an order should be made not less than two months before the date of the election to which it relates.

PRIME MINISTER

  Engagements
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 11 January. [8138]

  Sir Peter Tapsell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 11 January. [8139]

  The Deputy Prime Minister
  I have been asked to reply. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is in Paris representing Her Majesty's Government at the commemorative service for the late President Mitterrand.

  Regulators
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the regulators, indicating their dates of appointment, period of tenure, salary, including any performance-related element, and their previous employment prior to employment with salary plus bonuses, where these are(a) known and (b) in the public domain. [8121]

  The Prime Minister
  The information is shown in the table:
  289

  Office

  Regulator

  First appointment

  Term

  Salary1

  Former employment

  Former salary2

  Electricity supply

  Professor Stephen Littlechild

  1st September 1989

  5+5

  102,500

  Birmingham University

  —

  Fair trading

  Mr. John Bridgeman

  1st October 1995

  5

  130,000

  British Alcan

  191,000

  Gas supply

  Ms Clare Spottis-woode

  1st November 1993

  5

  90,000

  Self employed

  —

  National lottery

  Mr. Peter Davis

  25th October 1993

  5

  84,255

  Sturge Holdings plc

  —

  Rail

  Mr. John Swift

  1st December 1993

  5

  131,650

  Queens Counsel

  —

  Telecommunications

  Mr. Donald Cruickshank

  1st April 1993

  5

  126,400

  NHS Scotland

  —

  Water services

  Mr. Ian Byatt

  1st August 1989

  5+2

  81,381

  HM Treasury

  59,800

  1 No regulators receive performance related pay.

  2 Where known and in the public domain.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  East Timor
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 18 December,Official Report, column 839, of whom inquiries were made to investigate the reports about Hawk aircraft flying over East Timor and by whom; and what criteria were applied to judge the validity of the information. [8011]

  Mr. Hanley
  Various inquiries were made of confidential sources, which it would not be proper to disclose. As I said in my answer on 18 December 1995,Official Report, column 839, we have looked into the reports about Hawk aircraft over East Timor but have found no evidence to substantiate them.

  Executive Agencies
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if answers sent to hon. Members in reply to parliamentary questions by the head of executive agencies in his Department are(a) seen, (b) approved and (c) amended by him before they are sent; and if he will identify such letters to which amendments by him have been made in 1994–95. [7831]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  Parliamentary questions are passed to the head of an executive agency for reply when the matter is one delegated to him or her under the agency framework document. The relevant Minister may see a copy of the reply before it is sent, but would not normally intervene in operational matters. Records are not kept of any amendments by Ministers.

  Kashmir
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent steps the Govnerment have taken to secure the release of the European hostages in Kashmir. [7941]

  Sir Nicholas Bonsor
  We are co-operating closely in Delhi, Srinagar and capitals with the Indian and other Governments concerned, and continue to work for the safe and early release of Paul Wells, Keith Mangan and the other hostages. All Governments involved, the relatives,290
  and a number of interested groups in the region have appealed for the immediate and safe release of the hostages.

  We keep in close touch with the families and give factual briefing also to the constituency Member of Parliament involved.

  Harjit Singh
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his latest discussions with the Indian Govnerment regarding the case of Harjit Singh. [8177]

  Mr. Hanley
  We remain in touch with the Indian authorities about the case of Harjit Singh. The latest court hearing was on 28 November, when the judge ordered an inquiry by the Central Bureau of Intelligence. We await its outcome.

  Anglo-French Military Co-operation
  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list all committees which members of his Department assist or serve upon which discuss military co-operation between Britain and France as part of their remit. [8281]

  Mr. David Davis
  Military co-operation between Britain and France is discussed in the following committees: the Franco-British Joint Commission on Nuclear Doctrine and Policy; the Franco-British Euro Air Group steering group and working group; and the UK-France political/military working group. There are also a number of multilateral groups which discuss multilateral military co-operation.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Legal Aid
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department in what circumstances an individual earning £18,000 per year and renting out a property would qualify for legal aid. [7798]
  291
  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  An applicant will satisfy financial qualifications for legal aid if disposable income and capital fall within the statutory requirements. Disposable income and capital is that which is left from total income and capital after certain allowances have been deducted. Non-contributory civil legal aid as available if an individual's disposable income and capital are below £2,425 and £3,000 respectively. If disposable income falls between £2,425 and £7,187, or £7,920 for personal injury cases, respectively, an individual will have to pay a contribution. If disposable income and capital are above the upper limits then an individual will he outside the scheme. In criminal cases an applicant will receive non-contributory legal aid if weekly disposable income and capital is below £47 and £3,000 respectively. A contribution will be required if weekly disposable income and capital is above those limits. There are no upper limits in criminal legal aid.

  Mr. Smith
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list the criteria for eligibility for legal aid. [7799]

  Mr. Evans
  The financial eligibility criteria for both civil and criminal legal aid are set out in my answer today to the hon. Member's question about the circumstances in which an individual earning £18,000 per year and renting out property would qualify for legal aid.

  In civil cases, the applicant must also satisfy the Legal Aid Board that he or she has reasonable grounds for taking, defending or being a party to proceedings, and that it is reasonable in the particular circumstances of the case for legal aid to be granted. These tests must be met throughout the time that the case is legally aided.

  In criminal cases, the court must also be satisfied that it is in the interests of justice that the applicant should have legal representation. In deciding whether it is the interests of justice, the court must take several factors into account, including whether the charge against the defendant is so serious that he or she may be imprisoned or lose his job if convicted or whether there is a substantial point of law to be considered in the case.

  Mr. Smith
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what steps a member of the public can take to ensure that a fraudulent claim for legal aid is properly investigated. [7800]

  Mr. Evans
  Members of the public can write to the Legal Aid Board if they have any evidence or suspicion that a fraudulent claim has been made for civil legal aid or for green form advice and assistance. The board will investigate any allegations of fraud. Allegations of false declaration of means by an assisted person are referred to the Benefits Agency to investigate further. If the allegations are substantiated, the Legal Aid Board revokes the legal aid certificate and the assisted person is liable to pay all costs incurred. Certain cases may be referred to the police who will consider prosecution under section 39 of the Legal Aid Act 1988.

  Members of the public who have evidence of a fraudulent claim for criminal legal aid should write to the relevant court. The courts investigate allegations of
  292
  fraudulent claims and refer substantiated allegations to the police.

  Interdepartmental Working Group on Marriage
  Mr. Sims
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what progress has been made by the interdepartmental working party on marriage. [9473]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  The interdepartmental working party on marriage is working on a summary of its findings so far. It hopes to hold a seminar for interested service providers and researchers in February or March this year to discuss these findings before finalising them. The working party is grateful to all those groups who have responded so fully and promptly to its questionnaire.

  The working party has given a preliminary indication of the types of initiatives at which it believes resources may need to be targeted. These are:
  marriage preparation projects;
  encouraging people to access services before a problem becomes a crisis;
  encouraging innovation as one service will not suit the needs of every person seeking help—there needs to be variety; and
  looking at whether some families have more specific needs, for example it is not clear whether the needs of stepfamilies and families from ethnic minorities are being met at present.

  The Government intend to work with organisations which seek to support marriage in examining the potential of these initiatives. Following consultation with these organisations at the planned seminar, the Government will consider bids for the funding of pilot projects in areas with particular potential for reducing the incidence and costs of marriage breakdown. The primary purpose of this exercise will be to evaluate the effectiveness and value for money of potential initiatives, particularly in the area of marriage preparation and new types of service provision. Organisations will need to specify how they will demonstrate the effectiveness and value for money of their service in preparing any such bids.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Overdue Commercial Debt
  Dr. Michael Clark
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what plans he has to review the case for a statutory right to interest on overdue commercial debt; and what form that review will take. [9378]

  Mr. Page
  The 1994 White Paper "Competitiveness—Helping Business to Win"—Cm 2563—announced a package of measures which the Government would introduce to tackle late payment. It also committed the Government to review the case for statutory interest"if there has not been a significant improvement within the next two years".

  There have been some signs of improving payment times in the UK, but late payment continues to be of concern to a number of small firms. Therefore, even though the package of measures now largely in place has not been so for long enough to have had an impact on late payment, I have decided to look again at the arguments

  293
  for and against statutory interest. The review will be in the context of my wider consideration of how the problem of late payment can best be addressed. I have today invited relevant submissions from representative bodies who responded to the public consultation in November 1993. The submission will be considered alongside research and survey evidence. The outcome of the review will be published in the summer.

  EU Structural Funds
  Dr. Michael Clark
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if there will be a revision of the areas eligible for grant from the EU structural funds under objective 2. [9379]

  Mr. Eggar
  The European Commission has been reviewing the current list of areas, but is not committed to revising it. The Government's view is that revision would not be in the national interest.

  I am glad to say that, at an informal meeting of EU Ministers which I attended in Madrid on 1 December, there was general consensus on the part of member states in favour of "complete continuity" between the current list of areas, which expires at the end of 1996, and the list for the period 1997–99.

  A formal decision from the Commission is expected during the coming weeks.

  Arms Sales
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what criteria are used in checking end-use certification of arms sales; and what information the Government publish on this matter. [7689]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  [holding answer 10 January 1996]: Appropriate documentation to provide evidence of end-use must be supplied in support of applications for individual licences to export arms and military equipment. If the consignee is an overseas Government, the applicant must provide a copy of the official order or the appropriate parts of the contract. In respect of small arms, requirements vary according to the country of destination: for many countries the applicant provides appropriate import certification from the authorities in the importing country. In all other cases, specific end-use undertakings have to be provided in a prescribed format and on the end-user's headed notepaper. The information in the supporting documentation is assessed by the Department of Trade and Industry export control organisation, and by other Government Departments from which the DTI takes advice in considering the application. The Government give guidance on the type of supporting documentation which must be supplied, the circumstances in which they are required, the information they need to contain and the format in which they must be supplied.

  Nigeria (Arms Embargo)
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what action he has taken on the European ban on arms exports to Nigeria; and how this applies to(a) dual use goods and (b) existing contracts. [7688]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  [holding answer 10 January 1996]: In common with arms embargoes against other countries,
  294
  the embargo against Nigeria is enforced by means of the export licensing regime operated by the Department of Trade and Industry. Any licence applications which may be made in respect of embargoed goods to the relevant destinations are considered in light of the terms of the embargo in question. The embargo against Nigeria includes all military, security and paramilitary goods and arms, ammunition and related material which is listed in schedule 1, part III, group 1 of the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1994. The embargo does not include other categories of goods which are controlled under that order, although such goods remain under strict licensing control. Nor does it extend to existing contracts for defence equipment for which individual licences have been issued.

  Ms Walley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make it his policy to reject all further licences for the sale of arms to Nigeria; and if he will make a statement. [6939]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Hill) on 12 December 1995,Official Report, columns 599–600.

  Interreg Programme
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list the amounts of money paid or committed in respect of projects in each of the member states of the European Union under the Interreg programme for each available year since its inception. [7038]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  [holding answer 20 December 1995]: I have information about amounts of money committed in respect of projects only in the UK. Interreg grants so committed have been as follows:

  1991: £3.7 million

  1992: £8.2 million

  1993: £17.3 million

  1994: £6.7 million

  1995: £1.5 million

  Total allocations of Interreg II A grants for 1994–99 are as follows:

  Ecu million

  UK

  109.4

  France

  246

  Germany

  402.2

  Italy

  347.4

  Spain

  564.7

  Netherlands

  69.1

  Belgium

  82

  Luxembourg

  3.5

  Republic of Ireland

  133.5

  Denmark

  17.7

  Portugal

  339.7

  Greece

  595

  Sweden

  39.5

  Finland

  43.7

  Austria

  42.7

  For Interreg I, the amounts are not available to me.

  Ceramic Industry (Quotas)
  Ms Walley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement in respect of the retention of existing quotas relating to the ceramic industry. [6937]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The Commission is about to report to member states on the operation and future of the EC's quotas on certain imports from China, including ceramicware. The Government will consider the report once it is available.

  Army Vehicle Contracts
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has made to the Ministry of Defence regarding contracts for(a) army field ambulances and (b) non-military vehicles for use in Germany. [7141]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  My Department keeps in close touch with the Ministry of Defence on major procurement programmes, including the two mentioned by the hon. Gentleman. Our objective is to ensure that the industrial implications of purchasing decisions are taken fully into account.

  The Government are committed, however, to full and open competition for defence contracts and final decisions on particular contracts will quite rightly be based primarily on value for money and operational considerations.

  Companies Act 1985 (Definition of Harm)
  Sir Irvine Patnick
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what definition he uses of harm to the public when deciding whether to make a direction under section 32 of the Companies Act 1985. [6682]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  No definition of harm to the public is used when considering whether to make a direction under section 32 of the Companies Act. I assess each case on its merits, taking into account the circumstances.

  When deciding such cases, I consider whether there are reasons for thinking, or evidence indicating, that the public would be likely to suffer harm as a result of the name. There must be evidence of harm or of the likelihood of harm; mere speculative harm would not be enough. I also take care to consider the likely impact of a direction on a company's business.

  Manufacturing Investments
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what representations he has received recently about manufacturing investment in(a) the United Kingdom and (b) the north west region. [7649]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  I and other DTI Ministers regularly receive representations about manufacturing industry and manufacturing investment. For example, in the north-west, my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade discussed issues facing manufacturers at a meeting with the Consortium of Lancashire Aerospace on 24 November. He has also recently received 296
  representations on behalf of the automotive sector in the north west.

  Postage Costs
  Mrs. Roche
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment he has made of the effect of(a) 1p, (b) 2p, (c) 3p and (d) 5p increase on the cost of (i) first-class and (ii) second-class stamps on firms with under (1) 100, (2) 50, (3) 20 and (4) 10 employees. [7554]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  None. It is for the Post Office to assess the detailed impact of any changes in letter tariff rates on its customers and on mail traffic volumes. The impact on companies of higher postal charges will depend on the nature of their business rather than on the number of employees. An increase of 1p on first and second-class letter tariffs equates to a 0.008 per cent. increase in the retail prices index. By international standards, UK letter tariffs represent very good value for money both in terms of cost and of quality of service. Royal Mail's letter tariffs last increased in November 1993 and the Post Office is committed to maintaining the present rates until March 1996, the longest period of stability since the 1960s.

  Insolvency Agency
  Ms Walley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade when he expects to make an announcement about the future of the Insolvency Agency. [7755]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  I expect to make an announcement about the future of the Insolvency Service at the end of January 1996.

  Company Failures (Construction Industry)
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many construction industry related companies have failed in each of the last five years. [8262]

  Mr. Oppenheim
  The following table shows company insolvencies, including partnerships, for the construction industry in England and Wales, 1990–94.

  Company Insolvencies: construction industry

  (England and Wales)

  Year

  Number

  1990

  2,445

  1991

  3,373

  1992

  3,830

  1993

  3,189

  1994

  2,401

  Source:

  DTI.

HEALTH

  Chauffeur-driven Cars
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the cost of chauffeur-driven cars used by his Department was in each of the past five years. [5852]

  Mr. Horam
  The available information is shown in the table. Information for financial years 1990–91 to 1992–93 could be provided only at disproportionate cost.
  297

  Financial year

  Total amount excluding VAT (£)

  1994–95

  316,609

  1993–94

  326,740

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what were the management costs of national health service trusts in England for the financial year 1994–95; and if he will make a statement. [8455]

  Mr. Malone
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Hawkins) on 4 December 1995,Official Report, column 37.

  NHS Contracts
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 24 November 1995,Official Report, column 336, if he will provide a breakdown of NHS contracts by (a) type and (b) region. [3330]

  Mr. Malone
  [pursuant to his reply, 14 December 1995, c. 804]: I regret that my previous reply is incorrect. It should read as follows:

  The numbers of national health service contracts, by regional health authority, for the years 1993–94, 1994–95 and 1995–96 are shown in the tables. The information available on contracts by type is contained in the "Review of Contracting" for 1994–95, copies of which are available in the Library.

  Total number of contracts

  Regional health authorities

  1993–94

  1994–95

  Northern

  181

  146

  Yorkshire

  146

  148

  Trent

  246

  279

  East Anglia

  116

  157

  North West Thames

  310

  345

  North East Thames

  255

  247

  South West Thames

  435

  476

  Wessex

  238

  206

  Oxford

  174

  186

  South Western

  115

  237

  West Midlands

  724

  606

  Mersey

  82

  79

  North Western

  659

  271

  South East Thames

  301

  122

  Total

  3,982

  3,505

  Total number of contracts

  Regions

  1995–96

  North and Western

  365

  West Midlands

  744

  Trent

  342

  Anglia and Oxford

  311

  South Western

  375

  South Thames

  544

  North Thames

  753

  Northern and Yorkshire

  303

  Total

  3,737

  Edgware General Hospital
  Sir John Gorst
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what meetings he has had with opponents of the closure of the accident and emergency department of Edgware general hospital; if he has completed reconsideration of the proposals to close the Department; and if he will make a statement. [8000]

  Mr. Malone
  My right hon. Friend has discussed the issue on a number of occasions with interested parties. Most recently he met two deputations on 13 December 1995. I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) on 19 December 1995,Official Report, column 1140.

  Sir John Gorst
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many representations he has received opposing the closure of the accident and emergency department of Edgware general hospital. [8003]

  Mr. Malone
  Approximately 5,000 such representations have been received, mostly pre-printed postcards.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Probation Officers
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what factors have led to the retention of the social work qualification for probation officers following its abolition in England and Wales; and what proposals he has to bring Northern Ireland into line with England and Wales. [8305]

  Sir John Wheeler
  There is no statutory requirement in Northern Ireland for probation officers to hold a social work qualification. However, it has been a policy of the Probation Board for Northern Ireland, for many years now, to recruit only those with such a qualification. Developments in England and Wales, following abolition of the social work qualification, will be watched closely. Any proposal to change the current Northern Ireland arrangements will be made in accordance with the particular needs and circumstances of Northern Ireland.

  Nurses
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the total number of second level registered nurses; and how many are currently undertaking training to convert to first level registration. [8335]

  Mr. Moss
  [holding answer 10 January 1996]: The total number of second level registered nurses is not held centrally. This information is available on the database of the United Kingdom Central Council for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting situated at 23 Portland place, London. The total number of second level registered nurses currently at 31 December 1995 undertaking training to convert to first level registration is 331.

  Government Purchasing Service
  Mr. Nigel Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when the prior options study of the Northern Ireland Government purchasing service
  299
  was completed; and what has been the outcome of the study. [9377]

  Sir Patrick Mayhew
  On 7 March 1995 my right hon. Friend the Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler) announced that the functions of the Government purchasing service of the Department of Finance and Personnel would be subject to a prior options study. That study is now complete and I have concluded that the functions should be undertaken in future by a new next steps agency. It is my intention to begin preparations for the launch of such an agency so that it might begin operation from 1 April 1996. I am satisfied that will ensure continuous improvement through partnership with suppliers to deliver long-term benefits for Northern Ireland and improve competitiveness in the market place.

  I also believe that the agency, in time, might prove suitable for privatisation, and I intend to look again at this possibility in due course. In the interim, there are a range of services associated with the work of the proposed agency which could be contracted out and steps will now be taken to market test these activities.

TREASURY

  Government Activities (Efficiency)
  Mr. Stewart
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he has taken to increase efficiency in the Government's activities. [7085]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  We have already reduced the cost of Government by more than £500 million a year. Provision for the running costs of civil departments for 1998–99 is more than 12 per cent. lower than this year.

  Investment
  Mr. Sutcliffe
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to increase investment in the economy of the United Kingdom. [7086]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  Industry is expanding capacity as needed. In the third quarter of 1995, manufacturing investment was 12 per cent. up on a year earlier, and 21 per cent. higher than at the end of 1993. This shows that we have created the right climate for investment.

  Ms Quin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he plans to meet representatives of the Confederation of British Industry to discuss investment in British industry. [7098]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer regularly meets representatives from the Confederation of British Industry to discuss a range of issues.

  Economic Performance
  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the economic position of the United Kingdom in relation to competitor countries. [7088]
  300
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The UK is well placed in relation to competitor countries, with healthy growth, low inflation, sound public finances, falling unemployment, a competitive exchange rate and rising investment.

  Mr. Austin-Walker
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the United Kingdom's economic performance relative to that of other Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries. [7097]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  In its 1995 survey of the UK economy, the OECD said that the UK was "among the pace setters" in its supply side reforms, adding that"the sweeping structural reforms launched in the 1980s are yielding dividends in a more flexible, competitive and less inflation-prone economy",
  which grew faster than the OECD average in both 1993 and 1994, and is forecast to have done so again in 1995.

  Savings
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on his policies to encourage saving. [7089]

  Mr. Jack
  The Government believe in encouraging saving and rewarding thrift. That is why we reduced the rate of tax on savings income from 25 per cent. to 20 per cent. for basic rate taxpayers in the recent Budget, benefiting 14 million savers who are basic rate taxpayers. This builds on our successful schemes such as PEPs and TESSAs and reinforces the benefit to savers from the best inflation record for almost 50 years.

  Inflation and Interest Rates
  Sir Michael Neubert
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he had received following the December figures on inflation and interest rates. [7090]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  We have received a number of representations welcoming lower interest rates and the best performance on inflation for almost 50 years.

  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on interest rates. [7094]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  Interest rates were cut by ¼ per cent. to 6½ per cent. on 13 December. This cut in rates was appropriate and fully consistent with meeting the inflation target of 2½ per cent. or less.

  Fraud
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what action he is taking to combat fraud. [7091]

  Mr. Jack
  The Government attach a high priority to tackling all types of fraud and abuse. The measures we have introduced to combat social security fraud arc already saving the taxpayer over £1 billion a year, expected to reach £2.5 billion a year by 1998–99. Customs and Excise is strengthening its intelligence and investigation activities, including over 200 more staff over the next three years, while Inland Revenue attaches similar priority to tackling fraud. In addition, the Treasury has recently issued its annual letter on fraud within
  301
  Government Departments, so that managers throughout Government will be aware of fraud risks, and will be able to strengthen systems to counter those risks.

  Tax Revenues
  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of tax revenue is raised through(a) direct taxes and (b) value added tax; and what were the percentages raised through these taxes in 1979. [7092]

  Mr. Jack
  The shares of direct taxes and VAT in total taxes and national insurance contributions were 55 per cent. and 18 per cent., respectively, in financial year 1994–95. Comparable figures for 1979–80 were 56 per cent. and 12 per cent.

  The share of income tax has fallen from 29 per cent. to 27 per cent. over the same period.

  Budget Representations
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received on the Budget. [7093]

  Mr. Waldegrave
  As usual, my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer received a large number of representations in the run-up to the Budget and he has also received a number since he made his Budget statement in November.

  Pensioners' Savings
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of pensioners have savings or investment income. [7095]

  Mr. Jack
  Around three-quarters of pensioners now have some investment income.

  Government Spending
  Mr. Patrick Thompson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he has taken to reduce wasteful Government spending. [7096]

  Mr. Waldegrave
  We have sharply reduced civil service running costs. We have undertaken fundamental expenditure reviews and senior management reviews of nearly all major Departments. All Departments are required to produce annual plans to show how they will improve efficiency by market testing, contracting out and other means and all next steps agencies are set specific efficiency targets.

  Economic Growth
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what level of growth is forecast in the economy of the south-west region by the end of 1996. [7099]

  Mr. Waldegrave
  The Government do not produce regional economic forecasts. However, gross domestic product for the UK as a whole is forecast to grow by 3 per cent. in 1996.

  Small Businesses
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what impacts his Budget announcements will have on small businesses. [7102]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  The Budget will encourage growth in output and jobs in small firms.

  Single Currency
  Mr. John Townend
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the cost to British banking and industry of the conversion to a single currency; and who will bear the cost. [7103]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  The Government have not made a firm estimate of the transitional costs to banks and industry, associated with the change to a single currency, that would be incurred if the United Kingdom participated in the third stage of economic and monetary union. Such costs would be met by those affected, and they would be among the factors that would need to be taken into account, at the appropriate time, when the Government make their assessment of whether it is in the United Kingdom's interest to join a move to the third stage of economic and monetary union.

  Under protocol 11 of the EC treaty, the United Kingdom will not be obliged or committed to move to the third stage of economic and monetary union without a separate decision to do so by the Government and Parliament. We will agree to take part in a single currency only if it is in our interests to do so, given the circumstances at the time.

  Cider
  Sir Colin Shepherd
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what he estimates will be the additional revenues arising from sales of premium ciders and the change in duty on cider levy and strength greater of 7.5 per cent. alcohol. [7104]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  The Financial Statement and Budget Report showed that the duty increase on very strong ciders is estimated to raise £10 million in its first full year, over and above what would be gained from increasing the duty in line with inflation.

  Public Spending
  Dr. Spink
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what priority he attaches to cutting public spending as a proportion of gross domestic product. [7105]

  Mr. Waldegarave
  The Government are determined to reduce the share that they take of national output below 40 per cent. and we are on track to do so.

  Low Incomes (Budget Effects)
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the effect of the Budget on the poorest 10 per cent. of the population. [7101]

  Mr. Jack
  All income tax payers will gain from income tax cuts in the Budget. Pensioners and others on low
  303
  incomes will gain from rising benefits, mostly uprated by 3.9 per cent. from April, or 3 per cent. for income-related benefits. All households stand to gain from our sound economic policies, which have already cut unemployment by over 700,000 since 1992.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Organic Cultivation
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to encourage more farmers to adopt organic methods of cultivation. [7716]

  Mr. Boswell
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Dr. Wright) on 6 July 1995,Official Report, column 365.

  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy
  Mr. Hinchliffe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what number of suspected BSE cases were notified during the past 12 weeks. [7990]

  Mrs. Browning
  [holding answer 9 January 1996]: The number of suspected BSE cases notified and placed under restriction in the 12 weeks from 26 September 1995 to 19 December 1995 was 3,996.

  Executive Agencies
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if answers sent to hon. Members in reply to parliamentary questions by the head of executive agencies in his Department are(a) seen, (b) approved and (c) amended by him before they are sent; and if he will identify such letters to which amendments by him have been made in 1994–95. [7836]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Parliamentary questions are passed to the head of an executive agency for reply when the matter is one delegated to him or her under the agency framework document. The relevant Minister may see a copy of the reply before it is sent, but would not normally intervene in operational matters. As far as I am aware, no replies have been changed by Ministers in this Department in the period in question.

  Fishing Vessels
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received from marine heritage organisations concerning EU regulations and consequential United Kingdom legislation requiring owners of sound, seaworthy and hand built traditional wooden vessels used for fishing to be destroyed, or rendered incapable of use on water or being disposed of to any private person or body for uses other than fishing, under any scheme of registration as a condition of receiving de-commissioning grant; and what replies he has sent. [8216]
  304
  Mr. Baldry
  I have recently received representations from the following organisations with regard to the decommissioning of traditional wooden fishing vessels:

  The 4+ Fishing Boat Association of the British Isles

  The Colne Smack Preservation Society

  The Historic Warship Preservation Society

  In replying to all these bodies, I have made it clear that it is a requirement of Council regulation 3699/93 that decommissioned vessels are permanently excluded from fishing in Community waters. Experience has shown that it is only by requiring vessels to be made permanently unseaworthy that we can guarantee meeting our obligations. It is also a requirement that vessels of less than 25 gross registered tonnes have to be scrapped to qualify for Community aid. Nevertheless, I am always willing to consider any suggestions an applicant may make for alternatives to scrapping which provide the same degree of certainty in protecting public expenditure.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will provide a breakdown of administration costs incurred to date and forecast for the future on PFI work. [5721]

  Mr. Boswell
  [holding answer 14 December 1995]: Quantifiable administration costs incurred to date on PFI amount to some £20,000 annually. Forecast future costs are broadly similar.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Aboriginal Artefacts
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what reports she or her predecessors have received from United Kingdom museums regarding the offer for sale of aboriginal artefacts from the Broome area of Western Australia; and if she will make a statement. [8002]

  Mr. Sproat
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is not aware of any reports received by her, or her predecessors, from United Kingdom museums regarding the offer for sale of Aboriginal artefacts from the Broome area of Western Australia.

  Iron Age Artefacts (Theft)
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what reports she has received alleging the theft and sale to the British museum of historic artefacts from the Salisbury area; and if she will make a statement. [8001]

  Mr. Sproat
  I understand from the British museum that it purchased a collection of bronze artefacts of the British iron age of unknown provenance.

  Research by the museum into the provenance of a group of miniature bronze shields included in this collection led to arrests in 1993. A site at Netherhampton,

  305
  Wiltshire, was excavated by the museum and confirmed as the source of an extensive hoard which included these shields.

  On 2 May 1995 the finders of the hoard were convicted. Ownership of the shields has now reverted to the estate of the owner of the land on which the shields were found.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Chief Inspector of Schools
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will place in the Library copies of advertisements for the post of chief inspector of schools together with the job description and contract of employment and the minimum period in respect of the current terms of office or the renewal of contract; and what(a) advice and (b) instructions were issued by her to the panel which appointed the present incumbent. [8253]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The chief inspector of schools is appointed by Order in Council, under the provisions of the Education (Schools) Act 1992, on similar terms and conditions as apply to other senior public appointments. The Education (Schools) Act 1992 specifies a term of appointment of not more than five years, with the possibility of re-appointment after that period.

  The present chief inspector, Chris Woodhead, applied for the post through open competition and was appointed following consideration of the applicants by a selection board. The board was chaired by the first civil service commissioner. The appointment is for five years from 1 September 1994. A copy of the advertisement and job description for the post has been placed in the Library. The chief inspector's contract of employment is personal between him and the Department.

  Grant-maintained Status
  Mr. Spearing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what representations she has received from(a) organisations representative of (i) parents and (ii) school governors, (b) denominational bodies, (c) organisations representing voluntary-aided schools and (d)other bodies, in respect of simplified procedures for obtaining grant-maintained school status without balloting parents of pupils currently in attendance at schools. [8252]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  The Department's consultation paper, "Self-Government for Voluntary Aided Schools", set out a number of possibilities for giving voluntary-aided schools only easier access to self-government. My right hon. Friend received the following responses:

  Body

  Number of responses

  (a) Organisations representing:

  (i) parents

  2

  (ii) school governors

  6

  (b) Denominational bodies

  69

  (c) Voluntary aided schools

  1,632

  306

  Body

  Number of responses

  (d) Other bodies(including local authority associations, local education authorities, teacher unions, bodies representing grant-maintained schools and former voluntary GM schools)

  246

  A summary of responses has been placed in the Library.

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will list the TECs that have still to meet the criteria for the award of a three-year licence; and what percentage this represents. [8450]

  Mr. Paice
  As of today, 47 TECs in England have been awarded a three-year licence, which represents 64 per cent. of the network. TECs have until 1997 to meet the standards. The following TECs are still working towards the criteria:

  Birmingham

  Bolton Bury

  Bradford and District

  CAMBS (TEC)

  CEWTEC

  CILNTEC

  ELTEC (East Lancashire)

  Essex

  Greater Peterborough

  Hampshire

  Heart of England

  Kent

  LAWTEC

  Manchester

  Merseyside

  METROTEC (Wigan)

  North West London

  North London

  North Yorkshire

  Northamptonshire

  Oldham

  Sandwell

  St. Helens Chamber of Commerce, Training and Enterprise

  Surrey

  Sussex Chamber of Commerce, Training and Enterprise

  Wight Training and Enterprise Council

  Wiltshire

  Many of these TECs are close to completing the process and I expect shortly to make further announcements of TECs to be awarded licences.

  Training, North-West
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how much money in(a) cash terms (b) real terms at 1991–92 prices her Department provided of training in the north-west region in each year from 1990–91 to 1993–94; and how

  307
  much money has been allocated for training in the north-west in 1995–96. [7652]

  Mr. Paice
  There are no consistent figures available for all the years requested owing to changes in regional boundaries and the setting up of the Government office for Merseyside.

  In the first year of the present structure—1994–95—the amount spent on training in the north-west was £136.25 million.

  For 1995–96, the Government office for the north-west has been allocated £169.826 million to spend on training. This does not include training initiatives run at a national level which cannot be disaggregated to a regional level.

WALES

  Apprenticeships
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many apprentices under the new apprenticeship scheme have received bursaries; and what proportion this represents of the total number. [7746]

  Mr. Richards
  A total of 498 young people started modern apprenticeships in manufacturing engineering in Wales in 1994–95. Of these, 188 or 37.75 per cent. were in receipt of a bursary. A total of 1,780 young people have commenced modern apprenticeships so far in 1995–96. Of these, 75 or 4.2 per cent. are in receipt of a bursary.

  Bursaries are available, for the first year of training only, to young people following modern apprenticeships in manufacturing engineering who are attending college on a full-time basis and who are non-employed.

  Number of newly registered cancers

  Clwyd

  East Dyfed

  Gwent

  Gwynedd

  Mid Glamorgan

  Powys

  South Glamorgan

  West Glamorgan

  Pembrokeshire

  Wales

  1988

  2,447

  1,490

  2,255

  1,416

  2,560

  593

  1,893

  2,196

  624

  15,474

  1989

  2,463

  1,273

  2,231

  1,228

  2,427

  576

  1,947

  1,967

  657

  14,769

  1990

  2,334

  1,317

  2,120

  1,572

  2,863

  468

  2,115

  1,753

  568

  15,110

  Newly registered cancers as a percentage of population

  Clwyd

  EastDyfed

  Gwent

  Gwynedd

  Mid Glamorgan

  Powys

  South Glamorgan

  West Glamorgan

  Pembrokeshire

  Wales

  1988

  0.6

  0.6

  0.5

  0.6

  0.5

  0.5

  0.5

  0.6

  0.6

  0.5

  1989

  0.6

  0.5

  0.5

  0.5

  0.5

  0.5

  0.5

  0.5

  0.6

  0.5

  1990

  0.6

  0.6

  0.5

  0.7

  0.5

  0.4

  0.5

  0.5

  0.5

  0.5

  Source:

  Wales Cancer Registry.

  Nursing and Midwifery Students
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) how many pre-registration nursing and midwifery students commenced training as initial entrants by means of(a) salaried student places, (b) Project 2000 and (c) undergraduate study, for each of the last five years; [8352]

  (2) how many pre-registration nursing and midwifery students who commenced training as initial entrants by means of (a) salaried student places, (b) Project 2000

  Cardiff Bay Barrage
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will place in the Library a copy of "The Bay Study—A Strategy for Water Uses" report of Cardiff Bay development corporation. [7965]

  Mr. Hague
  A water use strategy for the bay is an operational matter for the corporation and will emerge from discussions with the local authorities, other public bodies and possible users.

  Home Insulation
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many homes he expects to be insulated under the energy efficiency scheme in the next financial year; and how many homes were insulated under the scheme in 1994. [7816]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  No separate estimates are produced for Wales. The home energy efficiency scheme is run on a Great Britain basis and 450,000 homes received grants in 1994–95. The Government expect a further 600,000 to be given in 1995–96.

  Cancer Patients
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many patients were diagnosed as suffering from cancer in each health authority and for Wales as a whole for each of the last available three years, expressing each figure as a percentage of the corresponding population. [8086]

  Mr. Richards
  [holding answer 10 January 1996]: The information is given in the following table:

  and (c) undergraduate study, gave up their courses for each year of training for each of the last five years; [8358]

  (3) how many pre-registration nursing and midwifery students who commenced training as initial entrants by means of (a) salaried student places, (b) Project 2000 and (c) undergraduate study, (i) qualified and (ii) registered with the UKCC, for each of the last five years; [8357]

  (4) how many pre-registration nursing and midwifery

  309
  students who commenced training as initial entrants by means of (a) salaried student places, (b) Project 2000 and (c) undergraduate study, gave up their training in (i) the first year, (ii) the second year and (iii) the third year, for each of the last five years. [8359]

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  Project 2000

  Commenced training as initial entrants of which:

  100

  987

  793

  656

  737

  gave up in first year

  30

  93

  47

  59

  n/a

  gave up in second year

  4

  67

  88

  n/a

  n/a

  gave up in third year

  3

  72

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  qualified

  63

  755

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Midwifery students1

  Commenced training

  n/a

  8

  12

  12

  12

  qualified

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  8

  12

  1Pre-registration students undertaking a three-year course.

  n/a—not available

  Work Force Planning
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what studies his Department has undertaken into work force planning in the last five years. [8354]

  Mr. Richards
  [holding answer 10 January 1996]: Work force planning information is collected for certain non-medical and dental staff groups in the NHS on an annual basis. To reduce the burden on the service the information requested centrally was reduced considerably in 1995. Only information which enables decisions on student intake numbers to be made for those staff groups planned and funded centrally is now collected.

  Nurses
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the total number of second level registered nurses; and how many are currently undertaking training to convert to first level registration. [8356]

  Mr. Richards
  [holding answer 10 January 1996]: This information is not held centrally.

  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the number of nurses working in(a) private nursing homes, (b) private hospitals, (c) local authorities, (d) private residential homes, (e) the armed forces, (f) the prison service, (g) the occupational health service, (h) private industry, (i) self-employment and (j) any other categories; and if he will express the figures in terms of (i) total numbers and (ii) whole time equivalents. [8351]

  Mr. Richards
  [holding answer 10 January 1996]: Information is not available centrally for all categories requested. The available information, which relates to staff with a nursing qualification, is given in the following table. In addition, there were 24,728 whole-time equivalent staff in the nursing and midwifery group in the NHS at 30 September 1995. This figure excludes pre-registration learner nurses and any staff with a nursing qualification not working in the nursing and midwifery
  310
  Mr. Richards
  [holding answer 10 January 1996]: Information in the form requested relating to salaried students and undergraduate students is not available centrally. The available information is given in the following table.

  group but includes auxiliary staff within the group who do not have a nursing qualification.

  Category

  Number

  Whole-time equivalent

  Private nursing homes (at 31 March 1995)

  3,833

  2,687

  Private hospitals and clinics (at 31 March 1995)

  280

  253

  Armed forces (at 1 December 1995)1

  9

  n/a

  Prison service (at 31 December 1995)2

  14

  n/a

  General Practitioner support staff (at 1 October 1994)

  n/a

  611

  1 Data obtained from the Ministry of Defence.2 Data obtained from the Home Office.

  n/a-not available.

  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how he intends to estimate demand for nurses from the non-NHS sector; and how this information will be used to regulate the supply of nursing students. [8353]

  Mr. Richards
  [holding answer 10 January 1996]: Nurse training numbers are based on the requirement for newly qualified nurses identified in trusts' annual workforce plans. Allowance is also made for additional nurses working in the independent sector and with general practitioners.

  To estimate demand outside the NHS, private hospitals, nursing homes and HM prisons are invited to provide information on their novice recruit requirements as part of the NHS Wales work force planning cycle.

  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales by what means he assesses the demand for conversion courses for second level registered nurses. [8355]

  Mr. Richards
  [holding answer 10 January 1996]: The demand for conversion courses for second level registered nurses is assessed by the trust which employs the nurses.

  Housing Revenue Account Subsidy
  Sir Wyn Roberts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he will reach his decisions on housing revenue account subsidy for 1996–97. [9497]
  311
  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  We have decided to confirm the proposals which were set out in the answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Sweeney) on 28 November 1995,Official Report, column 600. These included an average guideline rent increase of 92p per dwelling per week and per dwelling management and maintenance allowance to be kept at broadly the same as in 1995–96. The other proposals, including one to limit rent rebate subsidy, are also confirmed with minor adjustments.

  Tables setting out each authority's rent guideline and management and maintenance allowance for 1996–97 have been placed in the Library of the House.

DEFENCE

  Mr. Fouad Makhzoumi
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the occasions since 1979 on which he, his predecessors or officials of his Department have met Mr. Fouad Makhzoumi; what was the subject of each such meeting; and if he will make a statement. [7802]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  I have nothing to add to the replies which my predecessor gave to the hon. Members for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) and for Wallsend (Mr. Byers) on 24 April 1995,Official Report, columns 394 and 396.

  Mobile Phones
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many mobile phones have been supplied to his Department in each of the last eight years; and in each of those years how many different suppliers were involved. [8035]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  Following the introduction of the Department's new management strategy in 1991, responsibility for the procurement of mobile phones was disaggregated to local budget holders. No central records are held and information could be produced only at disproportionate cost. I shall write to the hon. Member regarding the position prior to 1991.

  Mutual Defence Agreement
  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans there are to amend the 1958 United States-United Kingdom mutual defence agreement to allow greater nuclear co-operation between Britain and France before the next amendment conference in 2005. [8265]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  None.

  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if an office has been established for the purpose of co-ordinating Anglo-French nuclear co-operation similar to the existing atomic co-ordinating office, established to facilitate the 1958 US-UK mutual defence agreement. [8271]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  No.

  Nuclear Weapons (France)
  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make it his policy that no French Government officials work at, or use, the facilities at the atomic weapons establishment. [8273]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  No. Such a policy would be contrary to the Government's aim of deepening defence nuclear co-operation between the United Kingdom and France.

  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions there have been with the United States on the extent to which Britain can assist France in its nuclear weapons design, development and production programme. [8275]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  We hold regular discussions with both the United States and France on a range of issues related to nuclear weapons.

  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assistance is(a) being given and (b) planned to be given to the French Government to assist in the construction of PALEN. [8266]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  It is not our practice to reveal such details.

  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what procedures are in place to facilitate Anglo-French nuclear co-operation; [8267]

  (2) what assistance is (a) being given or (b) planned to be given to the French Government to assist them in developing the facilities and equipment necessary for computer simulation and above ground experiments in respect of nuclear testing. [8268]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  I have nothing to add to the answer I gave to the hon. Member on 16 October 1995,Official Report, column 37.

  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if any memoranda of understanding have(a) been negotiated and (b) are currently under negotiation or consideration to formalise aspects of Anglo-French nuclear co-operation; [8284]

  (2) if he will list all treaties and memoranda of understanding which currently exist between Britain and France with regard to nuclear co-operation. [8272]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  I have nothing to add to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) on 24 October 1995,Official Report, column 587.

  Mr. Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on how many occasions in the last five years French Government officials have visited a Untied Kingdom atomic weapons establishment. [8274]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  I have nothing to add to the answers I gave the hon. Member on 16 October 1995 Official Report, column 37, and to the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) on 31 October 1995, Official Report, columns, 155–56.

  British Aerospace
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what payments his Department has received in the last five years from British Aerospace for services
  313
  provided to British Aerospace; and what services were provided. [7603]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  [holding answer 9 January 1996]: This is a matter for the chief executive of the agency concerned. I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from M. A. Rowe to Mrs. Ann Clwyd, dated 11 January 1996:
  You asked the Secretary of State for Defence what payments his Department has received in the last five years from British Aerospace for services provided to British Aerospace, and what services were provided. As Chief Executive of the Defence Bills Agency I have been asked to reply.
  The value of payments received from a customer is commercially sensitive information and therefore cannot be divulged.
  Our payment records for British Aerospace, or indeed any customer, detail invoice number and value. In order to ascertain the type of supply or service covered each invoice would need to be retrieved and examined. Due to the level of business we have with British Aerospace this information could only be provided at disproportionate cost. However, examples, of the goods and services covered by the invoices are the provision of training, sale and loan of equipment, and levies due in respect of commercial sales.
  I am sorry I cannot be more helpful.

  Services Bandsmen
  Mr. Trotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many bandsmen(a) there are currently and (b) there were in 1990 in each of the services regular bands and in each band in the Territorial Army. [7984]

  Mr. Soames
  The breakdown of established figures for bandsmen for the three services, including the Territorial Army, is shown in the table.

  1996

  1990

  Navy (RM)

  227

  377

  Army (Reg)

  1,162

  1,991

  Army (TA)

  864

  992

  RAF

  206

  244

  The reorganisation of regular Army bands over the last three years has resulted in a reduction from 69 to 30 bands. Fifty seven bands which existed in 1990 no longer exist, and 18 new bands have been created. In 1990, 43 bands were established with 22 bandsmen, 14 with 34, three with 35, five with 49 and one with 30. There were an additional 25 staff. There are now 22 bands with 35 bandsmen and eight with 49.

  The reorganisation process in the other two services and the TA has not been so dramatic. Comparative figures for 1990 and 1996 are shown in the tables:

  Royal marines

  Number

  1996

  RM Band Portsmouth

  70

  RM Band Plymouth

  43

  Commando Training Centre RM Band

  44

  314

  Royal marines

  Number

  RM Band Scotland

  44

  Britannia Royal Naval College Band

  26

  Total

  227

  1990

  Royal Marine School of Music Staff Band

  65

  CinCNAVHOME Band

  65

  CinCFLEET Band

  65

  Commando Forces Band

  65

  Flag Officer Portsmouth Band

  41

  FOSNI Band

  41

  Britannia Royal Naval College Band

  35

  Total

  377

  Royal Air Force

  Band

  1996

  1990

  Western

  36

  42

  College

  50

  37

  Regiment

  40

  41

  Germany

  0

  40

  Salon Orchestra

  7

  7

  Central

  65

  69

  HQ Musical Services

  8

  8

  Total

  206

  244

  Territorial Army

  Total

  1996

  24 Bands,(all at 35 person strength). 24 other permanent staff

  864

  1990

  24 Bands (22 at strength of 31, one at 41, one at 55).
  120 juniors and 24 other permanent staff

  922

  Procurement Executive
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the estimated(a) costs and (b) savings to public expenditure by financial year in respect of the establishment of the new building for the Procurement Executive at Abbey Wood, Bristol. [8199]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The estimated works cost of the Abbey Wood development, inclusive of site acquisition, construction, fitting out, professional works management fees and VAT, is £254.1 million at 1993 prices—£273.4 million at 1995 prices. Expenditure on works is estimated to be complete by the financial year 1998–99, allowing for the payment of retentions covering warranty and defect liability periods. The associated direct relocation cost, inclusive of staff relocation costs, removals, recommissioning of transferred IT systems and buy-out of London weighting allowance, is estimated at £79.8 million at 1993 prices—£.85.5 million at 1995 prices—with the bulk of expenditure estimated to be completed by the financial year 2000–01 allowing for detached duty and housing cost allowances.
  315
  The net savings to the defence budget supported by the establishment of the new headquarters at Abbey Wood, Bristol for the Procurement Executive on completion of collocation are estimated at £86 million at 1993 prices—£92 million at 1995 prices—in the financial year 1997–98 rising to £105 million at 1993 prices, £113 million at 1995 prices, by the financial year 2004–05, and continuing annually thereafter.

  When other exchequer costs and benefits are taken into account, and subject to finalisation of plans for the re-use or disposal of existing accommodation, the Department estimates the net savings to public expenditure are estimated at £67 million at 1993 prices—£72 million at 1995 prices—in the financial year 1997–98 rising to £94 million at 1993 prices, £101 million at 1995 prices, by the financial year 2004–05, and continuing annually thereafter.

  Post project evaluation will be carried out by early 1997 to assess the extent to which estimated savings are being achieved.

  Porton Down (Experiments)
  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) on how many occasions studies involving service volunteers at Porton Down started without the permission of the Committee on the Safety of Human Experiments or the Independent Ethics Committee; and if the Committee on the Safety of Human Experiments included members who were not on the staff or Porton Down; [7309]

  (2) what information has been kept on the register of work maintained by the Committee on the Safety of Human Experiments described in his answer of 6 July, Official Report, column 369; when this register was set up and whether it is still kept; where the register is kept; who has access to the register; whether any part of the register is unclassified; and whether the register is available to be consulted by service volunteers who have taken part in the service volunteers programme. [7310]

  Mr. Soames
  These matters are for the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency under its framework document. I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from. John Chisholm to Mr. Ken Livingstone, dated 11 January 1996:
  Your Parliamentary Questions to the Secretary of State for Defence asking for further details about the register of work maintained by the Committee on the Safety of Human Experiments (COSHE) mentioned in my letter to you of 6 July 1995 (Official Report, column 369) and on how many occasions studies were started involving service volunteers without permission of the committee have been passed to me to reply as the Chief Executive of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency which includes CBDE as one of its divisions. I am replying to both questions in this letter.
  The register referred to in my answer of 6th July comprises of a list of the study protocols approved by the Committee for the Safety of Human Experiments (COSHE) since its inception. It is a classified document held in the archives of the Medical Countermeasure Centre at CBDE Porton Down. Access is limited to those managing the Service Volunteer Programme.
  316
  Since their inception no studies have ever been undertaken without the consent of either the COSHE or the Independent Ethics Committee. The COSHE was a committee of Porton Down medical practitioners and sometimes including external experts.
  I hope this information is helpful.

  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) when the Chemical Defence Establishment at Porton Down started its policy of providing details, if requested, of the studies in which a service volunteer participated to medical practitioners who are responsible for the medical care of the individual concerned; what details are currently provided; and, since this policy began, whether the individuals concerned have always been allowed to see these details if the medical practitioner wished to show such details to the individual; [7294]

  (2) if volunteers can inspect or obtain copies of contents of the paper folder referred to in his answer 18 July, Official Report, column 1174, containing details of their participation in the service volunteers programme at the Chemical Defence Establishment, Porton Down; if this paper folder contains laboratory reports and scientific data about the experiments in which they participated; and when the establishment started the practice of maintaining paper folders on each volunteer; [7311]

  (3) if all service volunteers in the service personnel programme at the Chemical Defence Establishment at Porton Down since 1965 have been informed of the name of the chemical or chemical agent which was being tested on them before the test started. [7305]

  Mr. Soames
  These matters are for the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency under its framework document. I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from John Chisholm to Mr. Ken Livingstone, dated 11 January 1996:
  Your Parliamentary Questions to the Secretary of State for Defence asking for further details of the information contained in the paper folders, mentioned in my letter to you of 18 July 1995 (Official Report, column 1174), relating to service volunteers at the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment (CBDE), Porton Down; what information was released to volunteers and their medical practitioners; and whether volunteers were informed of the substances being tested on them have been passed to me to reply as Chief Executive of the Defence Research and Evaluation Agency (DERA) which includes CBDE as one of its divisions. I am answering all three questions in this letter.
  The paper folders to which I referred in my letter of 18 July have been used at CBDE Porton Down since 1980 and contain details of medical examinations conducted on each volunteer as they join and leave CDBE. Access to this information is now in accordance with the 'Access to Health Records Act 1990' which gives patients the right to see or obtain copies of their health records compiled after 1 November 1991. In fact, it has always been CBDE policy to release medical details to medical practitioners on request. Experimental data and study details are held separately and this information is also usually available to medical practitioners on request. Medical practitioners are at liberty to show any of this information to their patients.
  Volunteers at Porton Down have always, as a matter of course. been informed of the name, nature and possible short term outcome of any chemical or chemical agent used in studies in which they are going to participate. The only exception was in studies using psychotomimetric drugs, such as the trials involving LSD in the

  317
  1960s, where it was considered that to do so might prejudice the scientific integrity of the study. Those volunteers were, however informed of the nature of the drug and the type of short term effects it might induce. Once any volunteer has been given this information they are given time to consider and ask further questions before proceeding with the trial. They are free then, and at any subsequent time during the study, to withdraw without giving a reason. These safeguards have been enshrined in the Nuremburg Code since the 1940s but had, to the best of our knowledge, always been the practice at Porton Down.
  I hope this information is helpful.

  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment at Porton Down recruited volunteers for its service volunteers programme. [7297]

  Mr. Soames
  This is a matter for the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency under its framework document. I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from John Chisholm to Mr. Ken Livingstone, dated 11 January 1996:
  Your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Defence asking how the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment (CBDE) at Porton Down recruits volunteers for the service volunteer programme has been passed to me to reply as the Chief Executive of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency which includes CBDE as one of its divisions.
  CBDE recruits volunteers for the research programme by placing its requirements in Defence Council Instructions, a form of internal notices, which are issued to all military units. Service personnel wishing to volunteer apply to their unit's administrative staff who pass the details to CBDE.
  I hope this information is useful.

  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many service volunteers were involved in the trials to determine the dispersion of chemical agents carried out in the underground sampling chambers at the Chemical Defence Establishment at Porton Down; which chemical agents were used in trials in these underground chambers; if these underground chambers were used for any other purposes; and in what year these underground chambers were last used. [7307]

  Mr. Soames
  This is a matter for the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency under its framework document. I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter front John Chisholm to Mr. Ken Livingstone, dated 11 January 1996:
  Your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Defence asking how many service volunteers were involved in the trials to determine the dispersion of chemical agents carried out in the underground sampling chambers at the former Chemical Defence Establishment at Porton Down, which agents were used in these trials, what other studies were conducted in the underground chambers and in what year they were last used has been passed to me to reply as the Chief Executive of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency which includes the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment (CBDE) as one of its divisions.
  No service volunteers have been involved in the studies conducted using the underground sampling chambers at CBDE Porton Down. These chambers, which were originally water reservoirs for the now
  318
  demolished farmhouse known as Old Lodge, were last used in the early 1960s for trials with riot control agents such as CS.
  I hope this information is helpful.

  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence to what extent tests and studies involving service personnel in the service volunteer programme at the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment at Porton Down since 1965 have conformed to the Nuremburg code and Helsinki declarations on medical research on humans in respect of compensation; and if he will make a statement. [7308]

  Mr. Soames
  This is a matter for the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency under its framework document. I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from John Chisholm to Mr. Ken Livingstone, dated 11 January 1996:
  Your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Defence asking whether tests and studies involving service personnel in the service volunteer programme at the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment (CBDE) at Porton Down since 1965 have conformed to the Nuremburg Code and Helsinki Declaration on medical research on humans with regard to the principle that persons should be compensated for any injury or loss caused by the experiments has been passed to me to reply as the Chief Executive of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency which includes CBDE as one of its divisions.
  All volunteer studies conducted at CBDE since 1965 have been carried out according to a written protocol approved by the Committee for the Safety of Human Experiments (COSHE), a committee of Porton Down medical practitioners and sometimes including external experts. Since 1991 protocols have been formally submitted to an independent Ethics Committee for approval before the studies begin. Any member of HM Armed Forces who suffers an injury that is attributable to service (including participation in studies at CBDE Porton Down) would be entitled to a War Pension. Claims for compensation, other than for a War Pension would be considered on a case by case basis. Compensation would be awarded, if appropriate, following a full examination of the facts.
  I hope this information is helpful.

  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what rules govern participation by service personnel who have recently given blood in the service volunteers programme at the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment at Porton Down; what is the reason for this policy; and when it was introduced. [7301]

  Mr. Soames
  This is a matter for the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency under its framework document. I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from John Chisholm to Mr. Ken Livingstone, dated 11 January 1996:
  Your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Defence asking what rules govern the participation by service personnel who have recently given blood in the service volunteer programme at the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment at Porton Down, what is the reason for this policy and when it was introduced has been passed to me to reply as the Chief Executive of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency which includes CBDE as one of its divisions.
  It is CBDE's policy that those who participate in the Volunteer Programme must be medically fit to take part in the studies required. It is therefore part of the procedures for acceptance onto the programme to conduct a medical examination of the volunteer.

  319
  When a study will involve taking multiple blood samples the medical examination includes a red blood cell count. If this is not within acceptable parameters (perhaps as the result of recent blood donation) the volunteer is not accepted for the study. Trials since the early 1940s have involved multiple blood sampling and we believe that the policy of using red blood cell count as part of the acceptance procedure for this type of study has existed since this date.
  I hope this information is helpful.

  Mr. Livingstone
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what details of experiments are given to hon. Members who write to the Chemical Defence Establishment at Porton Down requesting information about such experiments on behalf of individuals who have taken part in those experiments during the service volunteers programme; and if such hon. Members receive more detailed information of such experiments than the patient's medical practitioners. [7356]

  Mr. Soames
  This is a matter for the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency under its framework document. I have asked the chief executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from John Chisholm to Mr. Ken Livingstone, dated 11 January 1996:
  Your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Defence asking whether the information given to honourable members about the service volunteer programme at the Chemical Defence Establishment at Porton Down is more detailed than that given to the volunteers' medical practitioners has been passed to me to reply as the Chief Executive of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency which includes CBDE as one of its divisions.
  It has been CBDE's policy for many years to provide details of the type of studies in which a volunteer participated to an honourable member requesting this information on behalf of a constituent. The information provided to the honourable member is similar to that provided to the volunteer's medical practitioner with the exception that any medical details regarding the individual are provided solely to their medical practitioner and not to a third party such as the honourable member.
  I hope this information is helpful.

SCOTLAND

  Dounreay (Leukaemia)
  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what investigation is being made currently into leukaemia clusters around Dounreay. [7253]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 20 December 1995]: No studies relating solely to the area around Dounreay are currently being carried out but monitoring of the incidence of leukaemia in the area continues. Other relevant studies include the Scottish contribution to the Government-funded childhood cancer case control study. Linked to a parallel study in England and Wales, this is the largest investigation yet undertaken into the causation of childhood leukaemia and will cover all cases of childhood cancer registered in Scotland in the period 1991–94.

  Water Rates
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland on what basis the water authorities in Scotland will calculate the revenue which the unitary councils will be expected to collect in water rates. [4444]

  Mr. Kynoch
  [holding answer 6 December 1995]: The three new public water sewerage authorities will set charges for their services in charges schemes for their areas. The unitary councils will be required to demand and recover unmeasured domestic water and sewerage charges payable for these services under a charges scheme less any reduction to such charges for which the Secretary of State may provide in exercise of his powers under section 81 of the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Act 1994.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what arrangements he is proposing in respect of the liability of the new unitary councils in Scotland to collect water rates. [4442]

  Mr. Kynoch
  [holding answer 6 December 1995]: My right hon. Friend will make an order under section 79 of the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Act 1994 requiring local authorities to demand and recover domestic unmeasured water and sewerage charges on behalf of the new water and sewerage authorities.

  Oil Spillages
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many oil spillages have been detected around the coast of Scotland in each of the last three years; how many sea birds and mammals were affected; and how many prosecutions were entered against those causing the spillages. [7656]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 9 January, 1996]: My noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate advises that in each of the last three years for which complete figures are available there have been the following number of prosecutions:

  1992: One

  1993: Four

  1994: Five

  As the number of oil spillages detected in Scottish waters is an operational matter for the Coastguard Agency, I have asked my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport to ask the chief executive of that agency to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from C. J. Harris to Mr. Tony Banks, dated 9 January 1996:
  The Minister for Transport has been asked by the Secretary of State for Scotland to reply to part of your recent Question about oil spillages around the cost of Scotland and the affect on sea birds and mammals. I have been asked to reply as the query deals with a matter for which I have responsibility as Chief Executive of the Coastguard Agency.
  In the three years period 1992 to 1994, there have been 477 reported oil pollution incidents in Scottish waters. Of these, 144 were reported in 1992, 178 were reported in 1993 and 155 were reported in 1994.
  In 1992 238 birds were affected by oil around the coast of Scotland. During the BRAER spill in January 1993, some 1500 to 1600 birds of all species were found dead, according to the report by the Ecological Steering Group on the Oil Spill in Shetland (ESGOSS) into the Environmental Impact of the Wreck of the

  321
  BRAER. The ESGOSS report does not attribute any mammal deaths directly to the effects of the BRAER spill. During 1994 366 birds were affected by oil around the Scottish coastline.

  Mr. J. Easson and Sons
  Ms Rachel Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what factors have led to his Department's delay in responding to inquiries made by the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West in respect of Mr. J. Easson and Sons. [7747]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  [holding answer 9 January 1996]: My noble Friend the Minister for Agriculture in Scotland wrote to the hon. Member on 5 January 1996 in relation to her inquiries on behalf of Mr. J. Easson and Sons. This followed lengthy and detailed discussions between the UK Agriculture Departments and the Intervention Board executive agency.

  Urban Programme
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if the urban programme will continue as a specific grant in 1996–97; and when he will make an announcement about its future. [7761]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  The urban programme will continue as a specific grant in 1996–97 although, as normal, grant payments will largely be devoted to reimbursing, in arrears, expenditure already incurred on approved projects. Views on the future of the urban programme as a specific grant were invited in the consultation paper "Devolution of Power to Councils" which was published on 29 December. The consultation period will end on 15 March and my right hon. Friend will announce his decision once he has given careful consideration to the responses received.

  Mobile Phones
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many mobile phones have been supplied to his Department in each of the last eight years; and in each of those years how many different suppliers were involved. [8039]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The information is set out in the table:

  Year

  Number of mobile phones

  Number of suppliers

  1988

  7

  2

  1989

  21

  2

  1990

  29

  2

  1991

  23

  3

  1992

  65

  2

  1993

  54

  1

  1994

  37

  2

  1995

  72

  3

  Nursery Schools
  Sir Patrick McNair-Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list by new local authority area, the number of nursery schools currently provided by local authorities. [8183]
  322
  Mr. Raymond Robertson
  [holding answer 9 January 1996]: The information is in table 6.1 of the new councils statistical report prepared by the Scottish Office and published by the Government statistical service in May 1995.

  Live Animal Transport
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received from(a) individual farmers and (b) farming organisations about the practical consequences of implementing EC directive 95/29 on livestock transport in sparsely populated areas. [8201]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  Of the 91 formal responses from organisations in Scotland to the consultation paper issued in October last year on the implementation of EC directive 95/29, 36 have offered specific comments on livestock transport in sparsely populated areas. These comprise 29 responses from farming organisations and seven from individuals who are, or are associated with, farmers.

  BBC Transmitter System
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what grant assistance will be available from local enterprise companies in Scotland following the proposed privatisation of the BBC transmitter system for the construction of boosters. [7998]

  Mr. Kynoch
  [holding answer 10 January 1996]: It is the responsibility of individual local enterprise companies to make decisions on applications for grant assistance for projects in their area. Any applications involving booster construction would have to be considered against the local enterprise company operating guidelines laid down by Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise, the overall resources available and their relative priority against other projects.

  Scottish Ambulance Service
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what arrangements exist to provide for the public accountability of the Scottish ambulance service for its management policies and practices and to ensure its employees are not subject to victimisation. [7999]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 10 January 1996]: The Scottish Ambulance Service NHS trust is a self-governing body with its own board of directors. The trust has freedom to organise its affairs subject to the legal framework within which it operates, the guidelines laid down by the Scottish Office and the contracts negotiated with purchasers.

  The trust chairman and his board are accountable to the Secretary of State via the management executive of the NHS in Scotland.

  A copy of the Scottish ambulance service's policy and procedure for the resolution of differences between the trust and its employees has been placed in the Library of the House.
  323
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what instructions, and on what dates, were issued to the Central Legal Office by the Scottish ambulance service in respect of the case of Mr. D. Allan Bruce of Kinlochiervie; and what action the Central Legal Office took in response to each instruction. [8285]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 10 January 1996]: I will write to the hon. Member as soon as possible and place a signed copy of the letter in the Library of the House.

  Non-departmental Public Bodies
  Mr. Gallie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what progress has been made in implementing the recommendations made by the efficiency scrutiny of the Scottish Office on sponsored non-departmental public bodies. [9474]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  The results of the efficiency scrutiny of my Department's sponsorship of non-departmental public bodies were announced to the House on 19 October 1994,Official Report, columns 285–86. The recommendations included new training and development programmes for staff involved in sponsorship; the provision of more advice and assistance to sponsor staff; and action programmes for putting strategic frameworks into place for each NDPB as appropriate.

  I am pleased to announce that the recommendations contained in the scrutiny report have been achieved ahead of target and copies of the implementation report have been placed in the Library of the House.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Loss of Benefit
  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what protection is afforded to people who lose social security benefits because of a change in legislation. [4096]

  Mr. Burt
  When there is a change in legislation affecting people already in receipt of a specific social security benefit, the extent to which, if at all, transitional protection arrangements will be required depends on a number of circumstances, including the purpose and nature of the benefit in question, the likely needs of those in receipt of it who may be affected by the change, and what other help is available to meet those needs. Consequently, protection may not be available for every beneficiary against all changes. Where protection is given sometimes it is for rights or concessions awarded to existing claimants, and sometimes for existing amounts of money paid to them. Protection against the effect of a change in legislation can also be offered by means of a lengthy period of introduction of the new rules, or by announcement of the change many months ahead of the date on which it is due to come into effect.

  For such changes in the law there are procedures for consultation with the Social Security Advisory Committee—and, where appropriate, with the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council or Disability Living Allowance
  324
  Advisory Board—and, concerning housing benefit and council tax benefits, with organisations representing the local authorities.

  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what provision will be made on the proposed social security legislation to protect claimants who have made their plans on the basis of the benefit they would have received under the existing legislation. [4117]

  Mr. Burt
  The need for transitional protection is considered in accordance with the individual circumstances of proposed policy changes. In announcing proposals on 29 November, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made it clear that the proposal to limit housing benefit for some people under 25 living in private rented accommodation will not affect those in receipt of housing benefit prior to January 1996, which is 92 per cent. of the total, unless they change their address or have a break in entitlement of more than four weeks. Also, those who make a new claim between 2 January 1996 and 7 October 1996 will not be affected by the new rules until the date of the first review of their claim after 7 October 1996. The announcement of the proposal to bring the mobility component of disability living allowance into line with similar benefits which are withdrawn during hospital stays also made it clear that those who have been in hospital for 12 months or more, for example, will continue to receive the mobility component at an amount equivalent to the lower rate. Also mobility agreements, for a car or wheelchair, funded by the mobility component of disability living allowance, which are current when a person enters hospital will continue for the full term of the agreement.

  Child Support Agency
  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what has been the amount of down time recorded for the Child Support Agency's operational accounting system in each months since April 1993. [4077]

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  The information is not available in the format requested. The available information is in the table.

  Period

  Service availability percentage

  3 August 1994–9 August 1994

  99.8

  15 August 1994–21 August 1994

  97.6

  28 August 1994–4 September 1994

  99.6

  5 September 1994–11 September 1994

  99.6

  12 September 1994–18 September 1994

  99.9

  19 September 1994–25 September 1994

  99.6

  14 November 1994–20 November 1994

  99.6

  28 November 1994–4 December 1994

  99.6

  9 January 1995–15 January 1995

  99.2

  6 March 1995–12 March 1995

  99.7

  27 March 1995–2 April 1995

  99.8

  12 June 1995–18 June 1995

  99.7

  26 June 1995–2 July 1995

  98.9

  31 July 1995–6 August 1995

  99.6

  7 August 1995–13 August 1995

  99.7

  14 August 1995–20 August 1995

  99.8

  6 November 1995–12 November 1995

  99.7

  The operation accounting system went live on 7 June 1994.

  Pensioners (Benefit Take-up)
  Sir Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his latest estimate of the number and proportion of pensioners in the United Kingdom who do not take up(a) income support, (b) housing benefit and (c) council tax benefit to which they are entitled; and what is the estimated value of the unclaimed benefits. [7646]

  Mr. Heald
  The most recent information is for 1993–94 and applies to Great Britain.

  The latest figures for take-up are contained in the "Income Related Benefits Estimates of Take Up in 1993/94" which was published on 15 December 1995, copies of which are in the Library.

  Incapacity Benefit
  Mr. Gareth Wardell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the mean and median periods of time in weeks that people who have submitted an appeal against the decision by the Benefit Agency to stop their incapacity benefit have to wait before a hearing is held. [7795]

  November 1979 £

  April 1995 (if increased in line with RPI) £

  April 1995 (if increased in line with average earnings) £

  Standard rate cat. A RP for a single person

  23.30

  56.95

  77.75

  Standard RP for a married couple

  37.30

  91.15

  124.65

  1. Calculations are rounded to the nearest 5p at each uprating date.

  2. Increases in RPI are calculated using the retail prices index (all items) as supplied by Central Statistical Office.

  3. Earnings increases are calculated using the average earnings index (whole economy unadjusted) as published by the Central Statistical Office.

  Poverty
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what recent assessment he has made of the extent of poverty in the United Kingdom. [8082]

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  There is no simple or meaningful way to define or measure poverty. Income is not always an accurate guide to living standards, especially among households in the lowest income deciles.

  National Insurance
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to change the means of levying national insurance. [7100]

  Mr. Heald
  None.

  Equal Treatment
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list each form of institutional discrimination listed by his Department between men and women for social security benefit purposes; what is the approximate number of claimants affected by each different form and the approximate annual cost of removing each form if there were no retrospective effect of removal; and what assessment he has made as to what extent each form is necessarily and objectively to the
  326
  Mr. Burt
  The information could he obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Executive Agencies
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if answers sent to hon. Members in reply to parliamentary questions by the head of executive agencies in his Department are(a) seen, (b) approved and (c) amended by him before they are sent; and if he will identify such letters to which amendments by him have been made in 1994–95.

  Mr. Burt
  Parliamentary questions are passed to the head of an executive agency for reply when the matter is one delegated to him or her under the agency framework document. The relevant Minister sees a copy of the reply before it is sent, but would not normally intervene in operational matters. No record is kept of any amendments suggested by Ministers.

  Retirement Pensions
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the pension for(a) a couple and (b) an individual in 1979; and what it would currently be if the pension had been uprated in line with (i) inflation and (ii) earnings. [8080]

  Mr. Heald
  The information is in the table.

  difference in pensionable age; and if he will make statement. [1080]

  Mr. Heald
  [holding answer 23 November 1995]: The table sets out the different treatment of men and women in the social security system. These either relate to the differences in pensionable age or are otherwise considered to be permitted in law. Estimates of the financial effects of equalisation depend on the basis on which provisions are equalised.

  The Pensions Act 1995 introduces further equalisation into the social security system linked to an equal state pension age. The financial implications of this Act are contained in the report by the Government Actuary on the financial provisions of the Bill on the national insurance fund, Cm 2714.

  Benefit

  Description

  Unemployment benefit1

  The maximum age for receipt is

  65 for women, 70 for men. The

  age at which the benefit rate

  changes to the retirement

  pension rate is 60 for women,

  65 for men.

  Long-term incapacity benefit

  The maximum age for receipt is

  60 for women, 65 for men.

  Short-term incapacity benefit

  The maximum age for receipt is

  65 for women, 70 for men. The

  327

  Benefit

  Description

  age at which the benefit rate

  changes to the retirement

  pension rate is 60 for women,

  65 for men.

  Transitional invalidity

  The upper age limit for

  allowance and related age

  acquiring entitlement to the

  addition to retirement pension2

  lower rate of allowance was 55

  for women, 60 for men.

  Widow's payment, widowed

  Married women are entitled on

  mother's allowance, widow's

  widowhood where statutory

  pension

  conditions are satisfied. There

  are no equivalent benefits for

  men.

  Category A retirement pension

  The minimum age of

  (own insurance)

  entitlement is 60 for women, 65

  for men. Women may defer

  their entitlement in order to

  receive increments between age

  60 and 65; men between 65 and

  70. Entitlement to retirement

  pension is calculated on a

  working life of 44 years for

  women, 49 for men.

  Category B retirement pension

  A woman must be aged 60 and

  (spouse's contributions

  over and (i) married to husband

  who is entitled to category A

  retirement pension, or (ii)

  widowed after age 60 and late

  husband satisfied contribution

  condition for category A

  retirement pension, or (iii)

  widowed before age 60 and in

  receipt of widow's pension at

  that age in consequence of

  husband's death. A man is

  entitled only where (i) both he

  and his late wife were over

  pensionable age when she died

  and (ii) she satisfied the

  contribution conditions for

  category A retirement pension.

  Retirement pension—

  earnings-related additional

  pension (SERPS) 1986 Act

  changes to SERPS calculation

  for people reaching

  pensionable age from 6 April

  1999 affect men born after 5

  April 1934 and women born

  after 5 April 1939.

  Graduated retirement benefit

  The minimum age of

  entitlement is 60 for women, 65

  for men. The amount of

  graduated contributions paid to

  obtain one graduated retirement

  benefit "unit" was £9.00 for

  women, £7.50 for men.

  Reduced earnings allowance3

  Recipients transfer to retirement

  allowance at age 60 for women,

  65 for men.

  Increase of unemployment

  benefit or short-term

  incapacity benefit paid at the

  lower rate in respect of a

  dependent child. Child

  dependency increase are

  available for women from age

  328

  Benefit

  Description

  60, men from age 65.

  Increase of category A

  retirement pension for adult

  dependant. A woman claiming

  an adult dependency increase

  of retirement pension for a

  dependent husband has to

  satisfy the condition that she

  was entitled to an increase of

  unemployment benefit or

  incapacity benefit immediately

  before claiming her pension.

  There is no similar condition

  for a man claiming an increase

  of retirement pension for his

  wife.

  Child benefit

  A wife or mother of the

  child(ren) has priority of

  entitlement over a husband or

  father.

  Family credit

  In couples cases the claim is

  made by the woman and any

  benefit paid to her.

  Guardian's allowance

  A wife has priority of

  entitlement over husband.

  1 Jobseeker's allowance will replace unemployment benefit in October 1996. JSA will cease at pension age. As pension ages are aligned under the 1995 Pensions Act, different treatment will be reduced.

  2 Invalidity addition was abolished from 13 April 1995 but continues in payment to former invalidity benefit recipients.

  3 Women aged 60 and over and men aged 65 and over before 10 April 1989 continue to receive a frozen rate of reduced earnings allowance.

  Benefits Agency Medical Services
  Mr. Ron Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what percentage of doctors who currently work for Benefits Agency medical services on a part-time basis have undertaken further education on clinical topics in the last year in(a) the United Kingdom, (b) Wales and (c) England; and what percentage of this further education was related to mental illness. [6254]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  This is a matter for Peter Mathison, chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Ron Davies, dated 10 January 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about what percentage of Doctors who currently work for Benefits Agency Medical Services (BAMS) on a part-time basis have undertaken further education on clinical topics in the last year in (a) the United Kingdom, (b) Wales and (c) England; and what percentage of this further education was related to mental illness.
  Information about the further education on clinical topics undertaken by BAMS Doctors is not available.
  Fee paid Doctors are contracted on a self-employed basis and are paid hourly for a three and a half hour, half day session. All these Doctors, approved to apply the new medical test for Incapacity

  329
  Benefit, have received a flexible modular training course during the past year.
  Twenty per cent of the modules are related to the assessment of mental health problems and the application of the mental health questionnaire for the medical test for Incapacity Benefit.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Mr. Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what percentage of Benefits Agency medical services doctors work for the BAMS(a) full-time and (b) part-time in (i) the United Kingdom, (ii) Wales and (iii) England. [6263]

  Mr. Evans
  The administration of the Benefits Agency medical services is a matter for Peter Mathison, chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter front Peter Mathison to Mr. Ron Davies, dated 10 January 1996:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about what percentage of Benefits Agency Medical Services (BAMS) Doctors work for the BAMS (a) full-time and (b) part-time in (i) the United Kingdom, (ii) Wales and (iii) England.
  Details requested are outlined below. Both permanent and fixed term appointment Doctors are employed full time by the BAMS. You should know, however, that some Doctors employed on a permanent basis may also work part-time. Fee paid Doctors are contracted on a self-employed basis and are paid hourly for a three and a half hour, half day session.

  Appendix A: Number and location of doctors employed by the Benefits Agency medical services

  Location

  Total number. full-time employed doctors

  Total number fee paid part-time doctors

  Fee paid doctors aged 65–70

  Fee paid doctors aged 70+

  Wales

  27

  144

  39

  10

  Bootle

  14

  123

  22

  2

  Manchester

  12

  142

  25

  3

  Wembley

  26

  113

  32

  4

  Bristol

  14

  90

  17

  1

  Leeds

  24

  188

  32

  4

  Newcastle

  19

  64

  14

  3

  Glasgow

  25

  88

  19

  Nil

  Edinburgh

  23

  83

  15

  Nil

  Midlands

  38

  250

  1

  Nil

  Sutton

  32

  118

  28

  3

  Fylde DLA

  12

  Nil

  Nil

  Nil

  Totals

  266

  1,403

  244

  30

  These figures are provisional and subject to amendment.

  Family Credit
  Mr. David Nicholson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the backlog of family credit renewal claims awaiting processing during 1995; what change there has been in them in the last year and for what reasons; and what action is proposed to revise such backlog. [6317]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  This is a matter for Peter Mathison, chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.
  330

  Percentage

  Permanent/fixed term appointments

  Fee paid

  United Kingdom

  16

  84

  Wales

  18.55

  81.45

  England

  14.80

  85.20

  I hope this reply is helpful.

  Mr. Etherington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list, by region, the total number of doctors employed(a) full-time and (b) part time by the Benefits Agency medical services; how many Benefits Agency medical services doctors in each region are aged (i) 65–70 years and (ii) over 70 years; and what are the terms of their Benefits Agency medical services contract. [6321]

  Mr. Evans
  The administration of the Benefits Agency medical services is a matter for Peter Mathison, chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. William Etherington, dated 10 January 1996:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking if he will list, by region, the total number of Doctors employed (a) full-time and (b) part time by the Benefits Agency Medical Service (BAMS); how many BAMS Doctors in each region are aged (i) 65–70 years and (ii) over 70 years; and what are the terms of their BAMS contract.
  Information that is available in the outlined in Appendix A.
  Fee paid Doctors are contracted on a self-employed basis and are paid hourly for a three and half hour, half day session.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Letter front Peter Mathison to Mr. David Nicholson, dated 10 January 1996:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about the backlog of Family Credit (FC) renewal claims awaiting processing during 1995; what change there has been in them in the last year and for what reasons; and what action is proposed to revise such backlog.
  At 30 November 1994, there were 34,570 outstanding renewal claims and at 30 November 1995, this had reduced to 33,191. This figure has varied during the year from between 25,589 and 37,168.
  When a customer wishes to renew entitlement to FC, a renewal claim is required. Such claims may be submitted up to four weeks prior to the expiry of the previous award. This four week period enables enquiries to be made without the customer suffering a gap in benefit payments.

  331
  The FC Unit expect to receive a total of 900,000 renewal claims in the current financial year. The number of renewal claims received does vary throughout the year with two peak renewal periods. March and September. The Secretary of State has set two demanding targets for the clearance of all claims, including renewal claims to FC. These are that 60% of claims be cleared within 13 working days and that 95% be cleared within 42 working days. The FC Unit has achieved these targets throughout the current financial year. At the end of November 1995, the clearance of renewal claims stands at 71.3% cleared within 13 days and 98.5% cleared within 42 days.
  Management controls are in place to ensure that a high standard of service is maintained and that renewal claims to FC are decided as quickly as is possible.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Mr. Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proportion of continuing medical education modules undertaken by all Benefits Agency medical services full-time doctors is dedicated to psychiatry and medical illness. [6272]

  Mr. Evans
  This is a matter for Peter Mathison, chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Ron Davies, dated 10 January 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about what proportion of continuing medical education modules undertaken by all benefits. Agency Medical Services (BAMS) full-time Doctors is dedicated to psychiatry and medical illness.
  Approximately thirty per cent of the modules are devoted to psychiatric evaluation and assessment of effects of mental health problems.
  A balance of the modules is devoted to disability awareness and advances in management and evaluation of commonly occurring or complex medical conditions.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Claimant Deaths
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of the average length of time that elapses between the death of(a) a benefit claimant and (b) a pension claimant and the notification of the relevant benefit agency. [6269]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  This is a matter for Peter Mathison, chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Jon Owen Jones, dated 10 January 1996:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about what estimate he has made of the average length of time that elapses between the death of (a) a benefit and (b) a pension claimant and the notification of the relevant Benefit Agency (BA).
  Statistics on the time that lapses between the death of a customer and the notification to the BA are not kept. Experience shows that in the event of a death, the BA is notified, in the majority of cases, directly by the next of kin, solicitor, executor or nursing home. The death is usually reported direct to the BA within a few days and the computer systems are updated immediately.
  Once the relevant computer system has been updated any future payments will be suspended. The date of death is "broadcast" via the Departmental Central Index (DCI) to every other benefit system. This will automatically activate a suspension of future benefit payments, where appropriate, on those benefit systems.
  As an additional safeguard, the Registrars pass details of the deaths, reported to them, to the Office of Population Censuses and Survey. The details are then transferred to a tape which is sent to the Contributions Agency. The details from this tape are passed to the DCI which then broadcasts to every benefit computer system. This process takes approximately 3 weeks.
  I hope this reply is helpful.

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

Emtryl: Effect of EC Regulation
Lord Pearson of Rannoch Lord Pearson of Rannoch asked Her Majesty's Government:
How they view the prospects for the rearing of game birds in the United Kingdom if the European ban on the use of Emtryl is not withdrawn.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, dimetridazole, the active ingredient of Emtryl, is the only authorised treatment for a number of serious diseases of game birds and its withdrawal from the market would have serious health and welfare consequences. The Government have been in regular contact with the Game Conservancy Trust and the Game Farmers' Association, both during EC discussions to keep the industry informed of developments and, following the publication of the amending regulation, to try to find an acceptable solution to their problems. A number of options are being urgently considered with the aim of safeguarding animal health and welfare while ensuring consumer safety.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for that reply, but I am not sure exactly where it leaves the game rearing industry. Can my noble friend confirm that the ban on Emtryl is part of a European regulation (which means that it is not debated in national Parliaments) on which the United Kingdom was outvoted in June? If that is so, can my noble friend now give clear, unequivocal guidelines to those in the game rearing industry, which supports some 13,000 direct jobs and as many indirect jobs in this country, as to whether they will be breaking the law if they use Emtryl when they start rearing in only three weeks' time?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, my noble friend is right; it is a result of an EC regulation and we were outvoted. Spain, France, Italy and Portugal supported us, but that was not sufficient to carry the day. So far as concerns the current situation, under the regulation it is not now permissible to use Emtryl on game birds. However, as I said, we are pursuing the matter with the game rearing organisations and at length with the European Commission. We hope that we may be able to arrive at some reasonable compromise.
Lord Carter: My Lords, can the Minister say whether it is correct that Emtryl is used to keep the birds alive so they can later be shot? Is it also correct that
254
Emtryl can still be included in poultry and, I believe, in pig feeds, but that it cannot be fed to game birds? What is the logic in that distinction?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, so far as concerns the first part of the noble Lord's question, the answer is yes; it is required because of the British practice of rearing game birds in the wild, rather than following the Italian practice of having them reared in Denmark and released a couple of days before the shoot. As regards the second part of the question, yes, the situation is completely illogical but the likely change of direction is to ban its use in turkey feed.
The Earl of Stockton: My Lords, can my noble friend the Minister give us an assurance that, pending a solution to the problem, there will be no action taken by his department against game farmers and game keepers who continue to use Emtryl for this breeding season?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, we have no knowledge whatever of game breeders who are using or intend to use Emtryl during this breeding season; but we have no plans to police the matter, either.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is this not yet another interference with the "nooks and crannies" of British life as described by the former Foreign Secretary? Further, is it really necessary for the Government to comply with this particular regulation? Finally, can the Minister say whether there have been any cases of food poisoning arising from the use of this chemical called Emtryl?
Lord Lucas: My Lords: the decision whether to ban Emtryl is, taking a fair view of it, a difficult one. Emtryl is a compound which, in some studies, has proved carcinogenic. It is a type of compound which is likely to prove carcinogenic because it poisons the DNA. The studies on its safety were carried out some while ago and are well short of modern standards. The difficulties arise because the markets that it is used for are small. The costs of proving that it is safe would be in excess of £2 million and no one is willing to come forward with the money to do so. It is not an unreasonable decision to ban it; it is just a difficult decision and one that has gone the wrong way for us.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, will my noble friend say why it is the business of our European friends to legislate summarily on an issue of this kind affecting this country? Is it not absolute nonsense that they should be interfering?
Lord Lucas: No, my Lords, I think it is sensible that these things should be decided at a European level and that we should decide on a common basis what chemicals to allow in our foodstuffs and what not. For instance, the Germans treat these particular protozoan diseases with organo-arsenic compounds. When other products are reviewed under the process to which Emtryl has been subject, we hope that meat so treated

255
will not be allowed into this country. I think it is quite reasonable that these things should be decided by common consent. Some we will win, and some we shall lose; but, in general, we are concerned with consumer health and if there are consequences in other areas we shall do our best to alleviate them.
Viscount Bledisloe: My Lords, is the distinction between poultry and game not peculiarly illogical as the game will have been released and been free of treatment for three months before it is consumed whereas the poultry might have been treated the day before it was killed and eaten?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I cannot but agree with the noble Viscount except to say that of course partridges may be shot a matter of a few weeks after being released even in this country and there is no ban on our establishing Italian practices so far as game rearing is concerned in this country which would present their own problems. The permission to use this substance on turkeys is under another EC regulation which is not currently being reviewed but we suspect it will be in the not too distant future.
Lord Kimball: My Lords, will my noble friend confirm that the advice which he has had from the veterinary medicine directive is perfectly clear—that safe levels can be set for Emtryl and that a ban is in no way justified?
Lord Lucas: Yes, my Lords, that is indeed our position; but, nonetheless, this has to be a decision on a balance of risk. We understand the situation and appreciate the position taken by other members of the Community. It is in no way an unreasonable decision; it is just a decision that we would have taken in the other direction.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, with reference to an earlier answer of my noble friend, will he confirm that the carcinogenic effects of Emtryl were only discovered in single celled organisms and in nothing else? Will he also admit that there is no alternative to Emtryl, and that up to 50 per cent. of a flock can die without it? In those circumstances, how do the Government view the prospect of up to 10 million birds dying in great pain this summer?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, we very much hope it will not come to that. There are a number of avenues to pursue. There are other chemicals which may prove to be equally effective, and the Game Conservancy is pursuing them. There are different rearing practices which may make these diseases less common. Perhaps current rearing practices have taken advantage of the availability of Emtryl and have not looked at other possibilities. There are a number of ways in which we might act within the nooks and crannies of EC regulations to help game farmers out if there is some reason to suspect a plague of disease. We do not believe it will come to the worst prognostications of my noble friend.

East Jerusalem
3.17 p.m.
Lord Hylton Lord Hylton asked Her Majesty's Government:
What representations they have made to the Government of Israel concerning the moves of their Ministries of Housing and Agriculture, together with the police and army headquarters and the civil courts, into premises situated in areas of East Jerusalem held as a result of military occupation.
Lord Chesham: My Lords, we avoid arranging meetings and calls with officials in Israeli Government offices in East Jerusalem. We also regularly reiterate and make clear our view that the status of Jerusalem is a matter to be determined in the final status talks between Israel and the Palestinians, and that nothing should be done in the meantime which might pre-empt the outcome of those negotiations.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his reply and very much welcome it. Will he he willing to convey my congratulations at least to his right honourable friend Mr. Hanley on his recent visit to Orient House in East Jerusalem for discussions with the Palestinian leaders?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, I will be absolutely delighted to pass on the noble Lord's congratulations. That is something I do not see very often from anywhere but I shall pass on the congratulations with great pleasure. Indeed the Minister of State, Mr. Hanley, called at Orient House during his visit to Israel, the West Bank and Gaza, which is a reaffirmation of the long-standing common EU policy on Jerusalem and Orient House; that is, that Foreign Ministers from EU states officially visiting Israel should also call at Orient House. The Israelis tried to persuade him not to go but the atmosphere with the Israelis was perfectly amicable and he made that visit.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, the wording of the Question is such that it gives the impression that the move of these offices was fairly recent. Is the Minister aware that these offices were moved to East Jerusalem over 10 years ago?
Lord Chesham: Yes, my Lords, I am aware of that. Perhaps I might expand slightly on that. The Ministry of Agriculture remains in Tel Aviv. The army HQ is in the Ministry of Defence in Tel Aviv although the HQ of the central command is in East Jerusalem and has been for some years. The Ministry of Housing moved to East Jerusalem in 1981; the police HQ has been in East Jerusalem for more than 20 years and has recently had a new HQ built in the same area; and the civil courts have moved to East Jerusalem in the past three years.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, can my noble friend the Minister explain why, if the purpose is to maintain the situatic:- in Jerusalem until the final phase of the peace negotiations, it is not equally improper for Orient House

257
to function in East Jerusalem, which suggests that the decision will be on the Palestinian side? Why are these matters not treated equally?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, I believe that they are treated equally in that visits are made to West Jerusalem on the Israeli side and Orient House is in East Jerusalem. Our position on Jerusalem has not changed. It is a matter to be determined in the final status talks between the parties and neither side should do anything to pre-empt the final status negotiations.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, is the Minister prepared to raise with his right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the question of continuing housing settlements to the east of Jerusalem? Will he ask his right honourable friend whether he will raise this matter with the United States Government? Since successive American Governments have described the policy as an obstacle to peace and as a complicating factor, would it not be appropriate to ask the American Government to use their considerable influence with the Israeli Government to stop that unfortunate and short-sighted policy?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, I shall certainly pass on that message. Our position is that all settlements in occupied territory are illegal and are an obstacle to peace. We have raised the issue repeatedly with the Israeli Government.
Viscount Allenby of Megiddo: My Lords, can the Minister say whether he anticipates that the elections on 20th January will take place in East Jerusalem, and indeed all over Jerusalem? If that is not the case, will the Government bring pressure on the Israeli Government to ensure that they do?
Lord Chesham: My Lords, we have no reason to believe that the Palestinian elections, due on 20th January, which were agreed between the Palestinian authority and the Israeli Government, will not go ahead.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that many of us hope that what will emerge in the long run is Jerusalem as a capital for two separate states and entities? Will Her Majesty's Government bear in mind as a background to the negotiations the vital interests of three great monotheistic religions in not only Jerusalem but also such places as Bethlehem and Hebron?
Lord Chesham: Yes, my Lords.

Fish Fingers: Content
3.22 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they consider that any action is necessary upon the finding, in recent research sponsored by the European Commission, that fish fingers sold in the United Kingdom have less fish content than those in most west European countries.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, we believe that labelling of fish fingers could usefully be more informative. We
258
support the European Community proposal to require quantitative ingredient labelling which is very close to final adoption. When implemented this will require products such as fish fingers and fish cakes to declare the amount of fish that they contain.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his reply and in particular for the information that in future the fish content of fish fingers will have to be stated on labels, as with meat products at present. However, is this not a matter to be left to the tastes and preferences of the consumers? In the present circumstances of serious over-fishing of Europe's seas and severe pressure on fish stocks, may the frugal apportioning of fish to fish fingers also prove to be a sensible conservation measure?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I have to agree with my noble friend. Indeed, fish-free fish fingers would be very popular with my family.
Lord Carter: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the absurdity of the common fisheries policy and the lack of consumer protection in this country are well illustrated by this situation? While the common fisheries policy results in tens of thousands of tonnes of fish being thrown back into the sea, the Government have allowed a situation to develop where the British fish finger is singularly lacking in fish.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I do not see the sense in the noble Lord's question.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, having protected the British sausage a few years ago—a subject which I raised in this House at the time—will the Government now prepare to defend the British fish finger? Was the expenditure by the Commission on the research necessary?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I cannot comment on whether the research was necessary. I do not know how much it cost and I do not know of any particular use for it. With regard to the British fish finger, we know of no Commission proposal to affect it or abolish it, and were there any such proposal we would certainly raise two fish fingers to it.

Dr. Muhammad al-Mas'ari
3.25 p.m.
Lord Avebury Lord Avebury asked Her Majesty's Government:
What were the circumstances in which they decided to deport Dr. Muhammad al-Mas'ari.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Blatch): My Lords, the decision to remove Dr. al-Mas'ari was taken when it became apparent that there was a safe country where he was admissible.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, does the Minister agree that Dr. al-Mas'ari is a person with a well-founded fear of persecution in his country of origin and therefore is a refugee within the meaning of the convention irrespective of whether or not there has been a

259
determination to that effect? In those circumstances how can the Government pretend to get round their obligation under Article 32.1 of the convention not to deport Dr. al-Mas'ari except on grounds of national security and public order? Has it not been made perfectly plain by Miss Ann Widdecombe in repeated appearances on television that the reasons for his deportation are our commercial interests?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the important point is that a safe place is found for Dr. al-Mas'ari. However, it has to be accepted that Dr. al-Mas'ari is an illegal immigrant. He has used the hospitality of this country to wage a campaign to bring down the Saudi Government. The decision to remove him to a safe third country was taken strictly within our obligations under national and international law.
Lord Clark of Kempston: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that it is inexcusable that a dissident from a foreign country should be able to come to this country and stir up trouble between this country and a friendly government overseas? Does my noble friend agree that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary was absolutely right to deport this man? Finally, can my noble friend confirm that if Dr. al-Mas'ari appeals against his deportation order he will not, as a dissident and illegal immigrant, be entitled to legal aid?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I agree with much of what my noble friend says. Our Government exist to advance and protect the interests of the United Kingdom. Those include people's jobs and peace and stability within the Gulf states. They also include not damaging our national or international interests. The activities of Dr. al-Mas'ari since his arrival in this country in his attempts to overthrow the Saudi Government put all those interests at risk. It is therefore entirely proper for my right honourable friend the Home Secretary to take such matters into account while at the same time honouring his obligations under the law.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, since when has an asylum seeker who properly claims a place of safety in this country under the Geneva convention been labelled an illegal immigrant?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, it is not in doubt that Dr. al-Mas'ari is an illegal immigrant. He left Saudi Arabia and obtained a false passport in the Yemen. He then obtained a visa to enter this country. He entered this country as an illegal immigrant. The noble Lord may shake his head, but that is a fact. Dr. al-Mas'ari left Saudi Arabia for the Yemen. Under false pretences he obtained a passport in the Yemen and then obtained a visa to enter this country and entered as an illegal immigrant. I have to say in addition, that there is no right under any law for an asylum seeker to pick and choose the country in which he wishes to reside. Therefore, it is entirely within the law for my right honourable friend to secure a safe place even if that is in a third country.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: My Lords, does the Minister accept that many of those who are dissidents in their own country are precisely those who need
260
asylum for the very reason that they are under threat of persecution? Will she further accept that the national interests of this country include our stature as a nation which is believed to hold certain moral standards, including that of providing asylum for those who need it? Can the noble Baroness give an assurance that such moral considerations were given full weight together with commercial ones in reaching the decision in relation to Dr. al-Mas'ari?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, there is no doubt that this asylum application is being accepted and treated seriously. There is no question of this gentleman being sent back to the place where he perceives his life will be in danger. We are honouring our obligation to find a secure place for him; that we have done. The legal basis on which that decision was reached is paragraph 345 of the Immigration Rules which provides that an asylum application may be refused without substantive consideration if there is clear evidence of admissibility to a safe country.
The Prime Minister of Dominica has given an assurance that his Government would be prepared to allow entry to Dominica; and if Dr. al-Mas'ari were to seek asylum it would be granted.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, for what reason was Dominica selected? By what process was Dominica selected as the place where the Government could take action to get rid of Dr. al-Mas'ari? It is a process which is considered by many on both sides of the House as being discreditable to the Government.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am fairly confident in saying that the Members of this House who sit behind me believe that it is not right that we should give harbour to someone who acts against the British interest. However, we have an obligation under international law. That obligation is to secure a safe place. We asked Dominica; it accepted. We believe that it is the right place for this gentleman.
Lord Geddes: My Lords, will my noble friend assure the House that the decision to remove Dr. al-Mas'ari to Dominica does not in any way breach this country's obligations under international law?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I believe that I have said that, but I am happy to reassure my noble friend that that is our understanding. Dr. al-Mas'ari has the right of appeal. We do not know whether he has yet exercised it. He has 10 working days from 3rd January. If he does so, we will stand judgment. However, our understanding is that we have acted entirely within the law and under our obligations to international law.
Earl Russell: My Lords, perhaps I may hope to command agreement on both sides of the House by saying this. If the Government of Saudi Arabia were to require, as a condition of future contract, that we ban the consumption of alcohol in this country the Government would say, "No", no matter how many jobs were

261
involved. If I may count on that assurance, will the noble Baroness tell us why alcohol matters more than free speech?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, if I may be so bold, in the context of this Question I think that that point is rather frivolous.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, would my noble friend agree that if you took into your house a stray dog which persists in biting the postmen, you are entitled to find another home for that dog where it has fewer postmen to bite?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, if I have to concede to equality of treatment, I have to say also that in the context of this Question that was frivolous. I also believe that the law well covers the issue of dangerous dogs.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, in a number of answers the Government have relied on the general interests of this country. The Minister will know that we on these Benches recognise the obligation of the Government in general to protect the interests of this country. However, is not the issue of an asylum application a quasi-judicial function rather than a political question? Is it not wrong, therefore, for the Home Secretary to rely so heavily on the country's interests in considering an individual question of this kind?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, no, I entirely support the activities of my right honourable friend the Home Secretary in this matter. It is absolutely right that he should consider British interests. When someone is actively working against British interests, damaging both economic and strategic interests, and international relations between this country and another, it is right that my right honourable friend considers two issues: his obligation under the law to secure a safe place for an asylum seeker; and his obligation to protect the British interest.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, how many jobs are at stake from Saudi Arabia at present? Can the noble Baroness tell me how those who oppose the Home Secretary's actions propose to replace those jobs?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, those who have spoken in favour of Dr. al-Mas' art staying in this country should address themselves to the second point of my noble friend's question. It is not a matter for me.
Trade with Saudi Arabia amounts to about £1.5 billion. That represents many thousands of jobs in this country, all of which would be at risk if we pursued giving harbour to people who were actively working against our commercial and strategic interests in the Middle East.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, have the Saudi Arabian Government stated what she has said in this House: namely, that defence contracts would be cancelled were this man not to be removed from this country?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, no, I shall not confirm that because I do not believe it to be true.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, does not the lack of a ringing endorsement from the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh
262
of Haringey, for the action of the Home Secretary contrast rather strangely with the suggestion from the leaderof the Labour Party that Thatcherism would be safe in his hands?
Noble Lords: Frivolous!
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, no, it is not frivolous. In the context of the Question, I believe that my noble friend Lady Thatcher, and my right honourable friends the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary have at the heart of their policy making the economic well-being of this country, and strategic interests between this country and abroad. I believe that it is one of fire legacies that we are happy to carry. In view of some of the remarks of noble Lords opposite, I wonder where they stand on the issue.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, what action are the Government contemplating, by legislation if necessary, to ensure that in future refugees who are granted asylum in this country are not able to campaign politically against the overseas interests of this country?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Lord makes an important point. We have an honourable tradition in this country of giving safe haven to people who arc in fear of their lives abroad. However, if their activities act against the British interests, and put the British interests at stake, and if there is an alternative safe place in a third country, it is entirely legitimate for my right honourable friend to consider that option.
Lord Howell: My Lords, as regards people seeking political asylum, are there any rules which govern political activities which can take place? Most people believe that there should be such rules. People who seek asylum should receive an explanation about what they can or cannot do until their application has been determined.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, no. Li fact even the activities of Dr. al-Mas'ari were not illegal as such. However, what he was doing was to act against the British interest. When my right honourable friend had to make a decision about whether he should be given safe haven here or in a third country, he thought that it was in the British interest that he should go to a third country.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, if there is a conflict between Article 345 of the Immigration Rules and Article 32 of the convention, will the noble Baroness confirm that our treaty obligations to the convention would prevail?
Will the Secretary of State, whose father would have been an illegal entrant if the law now prevailing had operated at the time he came here, bear in mind that by giving way to the blackmail of the Saudi Arabian medieval autocracy we have now opened ourselves to similar treatment from every other country in the world

263
which awards large contracts to British companies and which wants their dissidents to be expelled from this country?
Baroness Blotch: My Lords, my right honourable friend acted honourably in this instance. He acted in British interests and I believe that he is right.

Asylum Seekers: Benefits
3.39 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to repeat a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Security. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a Statement about the regulations to reform benefit arrangements for asylum seekers, sponsored immigrants and others. I have today laid before the House the regulations together with the accompanying Command Paper.
"The aim of these reforms—together with the measures in the Asylum and Immigration Bill—are to ensure that the United Kingdom remains a safe haven for those genuinely fleeing persecution; to deal more speedily with their claims; and to discourage unfounded claims from those who are actually economic migrants.
"Of course, genuine refugees come to the United Kingdom to escape persecution, not to obtain our benefits. Their rights to asylum will not be altered in any way. And anyone who arrives here as a refugee and seeks asylum at the port of entry will continue to have access to benefits while their claim is considered by the Home Office.
"However, over 90 per cent. of those claiming asylum are eventually found not to be genuine refugees. The vast majority of asylum claimants are economic migrants. The number who come here is influenced by the ready availability of benefits. Relative to Britain, other European countries offer more limited benefits, less opportunity for work, and have tightened up the procedures applying to asylum seekers. As a result, since 1993 the number of asylum claims in western Europe as a whole hag fallen by over a third. Yet in Britain it has doubled. Consequently, the proportion of all asylum seekers in Europe who come to Britain has more than trebled over the last decade. The huge number of unfounded applications means the tiny proportion of claimants who are genuine face an unnecessarily long process. And the total cost of social security benefits alone for asylum seekers already exceeds £200 million a year. Yet more than 90 per cent. of this money goes to people who are not genuine refugees. No responsible government could ignore this growing misuse of taxpayers' money.
264
"One way to address the problem is to speed up the processing of asylum claims. The revised procedures in the Asylum and Immigration Bill will speed up the processing of claims. But it is crucial that the new procedures are not in turn overwhelmed by a rising tide of unfounded claims. So benefit changes are essential to discourage unfounded claims.
"Under the new benefit regulations, those who enter the country as refugees£declaring themselves to be asylum seekers at the port of entry£will still be entitled to claim benefit while the Home Office deals with their claim. So will people who claim after entering the country as visitors if there has been a significant upheaval in their homeland since their arrival. But at present some 70 per cent. of all asylum claims are made by people who entered the United Kingdom as tourists, students or businessmen. As such, they demonstrated that they have the means to support themselves while here. And they accepted that they would not be entitled to claim benefit. Yet when they subsequently apply for asylum, under current rules, they become entitled to benefit. We propose to end entitlement to benefit for those who entered the country saying they were not here to seek asylum but subsequently change their story. From now on there will be no benefits for those who misrepresent their case. British citizens do not receive a benefit while appealing against its refusal. Successive governments have upheld that policy. Otherwise, every unsuccessful British benefit claimant would have an incentive to appeal against refusal of benefit. However, under the present rules for asylum seekers, they are entitled to retain benefit during an appeal. Not surprisingly, the vast majority of asylum seekers do appeal against rejection. Yet 96 per cent. of their appeals turn out to he unfounded. I therefore propose that once an asylum seeker's claim has been considered and rejected, entitlement to benefit will cease. They will no longer be able to prolong entitlement to benefit by appealing against refusal of refugee status. In that respect, asylum seekers will in future be treated in the same way as United Kingdom citizens whose claims for benefit are refused.
"Particular concern has been expressed at the prospect of large numbers of asylum seekers losing entitlement on the day the new arrangements come into force. Of course, I understand those concerns. When the proposals were announced last October, there was an obvious danger of a surge of pre-emptive claims during the consultation period to get on to benefit before the new regulations came into effect. To discourage this we announced that those who made in-country claims or appeals after 11th October would lose benefit entitlement once the regulations took effect. This announcement does seem to have dampened the surge of pre-emptive claims. I have taken note of concerns about handling a large number of benefit terminations simultaneously and the transitional impact on local authority finances. I have therefore decided to amend the transitional

265
arrangements significantly. No one will now lose benefit at the point when the new regulations come into effect on 5th February 1996.
"The 13,000 or more asylum seekers who have made in-country claims or appeals since 12th October 1995 and are receiving income support, housing benefit or council tax benefit will continue to get benefit unless or until their claim or appeal is subsequently rejected. This transitional protection will substantially reduce the potential impact on local authorities.
"However, the Government also propose to assist local authorities with any unavoidable additional costs arising under homelessness legislation or the Children Act. My right honourable friends the Secretaries of State for Health and Environment will be discussing the details with local authority associations shortly. I believe this fully meets the most pressing concerns put to the Government by the Social Security Advisory Committee and local authorities. Taken together with measures proposed in the Asylum and Immigration Bill, and further work between my department and the Home Office on improving asylum decision times and priority setting, these changes will make a significant contribution to addressing the problem of bogus asylum seekers.
"The Government further propose that people from abroad whose leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom is subject to some limit or condition, for example, that they should not have recourse to public funds, should be excluded from non-contributory benefits. This will bring these benefits into line with the exclusions which already apply under income support, housing benefit and council tax benefit. The arrangements whereby people are allowed into this country on the understanding that a sponsor has promised to support: them has been widely abused. Nearly half the sponsors renege on these agreements. The regulations will hold sponsors to their agreements. Benefit will only be payable if the sponsor dies or the sponsorship -agreement breaks down after five years. Finally the Government propose to amend the arrangements to remove the discretion of the Secretary of State to make interim payments in some circumstances.
"No responsible government could fail to tackle a situation where well over 90 per cent. of benefit is not going to genuine refugees. These reforms will ensure that the UK remains a safe haven for genuine refugees. They will help deal with their claims faster. And they will discourage bogus claimants who are bettering themselves at the taxpayers' expense. The changes I have made will end concerns over the transitional arrangements, alleviate burdens on local authorities and protect the British taxpayer. I believe the measures are both fair and necessary. I commend them to the House."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
3.49 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, first I wish to thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made in another place. I wonder whether he begins to understand the concern, fear and anger the proposals have aroused. The revised regulations vary in only two ways from the original draft regulations. It is hard to be sure because we received such little notice of them. The new regulations vary in that they apply only to new arrivals and there will be some reimbursement of local authorities.
The original regulations were scrutinised in considerable detail by the Government's Social Security Advisory Committee, which sought the views of some 225 organisations and individuals: Churches, charities and local authorities. And what were the conclusions of that government committee? On page 12 of its report it stated:
"It is difficult to see how asylum seekers who are unable to work or find alternative sources of funding could survive through such long delays without support from the social security system. We are in agreement with the point made by the majority of our respondents that it is very likely that many would be forced to abandon the struggle and risk returning to their own country, possibly to imprisonment or worse. Arguably, the combination of the proposed benefit changes and Home Office delays would effectively deny such people the ability to pursue their rights under immigration law in the UK, also their rights according to the letter and spirit of international law".
Almost without precedent in my experience, the Government's own Social Security Advisory Committee has called in paragraph 66, and it has not done so lightly, for the unconditional withdrawal of these regulations.
The concern, fear and outrage relayed to the Secretary of State by the advisory committee, which he has largely ignored, was compounded in this House, first, by the way the parliamentary timetable was handled. The regulations, affecting some of the most vulnerable, threatened, frightened, sick and inarticulate people, were laid 21 days before 8th January. Eighteen of those 21 days occurred during the parliamentary Recess. Noble Lords will understand if the only conclusion we can draw is that the Government were anxious to smuggle the regulations through with as little debate, parliamentary scrutiny and discussion as possible. I acknowledge that the Government Whips in this House helped to persuade the usual channels that this was not the right way to proceed, and we are grateful for that. But it is no way to treat regulations of such significance affecting so many vulnerable people.
Our concern and anger have been compounded by the assumption, very clear throughout the Minister's Statement, of fingering the victim. The reason for the problem is the delay at the Home: Office in the processing of applicants. Will the Minister confirm that the following figures were given by the Home Office in response to a parliamentary Question in the other place on 4th December? Will he confirm that 15 per cent. of the initial application decisions from 1991 have not yet been determined; 15 per cent. from 1992; 15 per cent. from 1993; 25 per cent. from 1994; let alone the more understandable 25 per cent. for 1995? The reason we have a problem is the backlog of undetermined initial

267
decisions, which take on average eight months and may take two, three and in some cases even six years to resolve. Meanwhile under the new proposals, asylum seekers are supposed to linger on the streets without income or support. We ask how they will survive.
Will the Minister also accept that the distinction he draws between the 30 per cent. of refugee status seekers at the port of entry and the 70 per cent. who subsequently apply after entry, whose applications he calls bogus, is itself bogus? That is made clear in paragraph 38 of the report of the government advisory committee. The committee states that those who come to court are certainly not scroungers but will often have a lack of knowledge of our procedures, will be confused and frightened, will have genuine language difficulties, and may come with a well-founded fear of officials and police. They will have a reasonable need of advice and guidance. It is therefore sensible and safer for them to apply for asylum once they have entered this country.
So says the Government's Social Security Advisory Committee. The problem is due to Home Office delay in processing. It is unreasonable to penalise those who enter the country and apply for asylum once they have entered. As the committee states, that is a sensible and safer way for them to proceed.
Why, then, is it being done? It is being done in order to save £200 million in cash and to appeal yet again to the knee-jerk right-wing majority that is, unfortunately, increasingly making itself heard in the other place.
The Government estimates that they will save £200 million on the original proposals. Perhaps the Government will confirm that that figure still stands. The cost of keeping a family of four on reduced social security benefit (just income support) for a week is about £100. The cost of taking one child into care when that family no longer has an income is £870 a week. Yet the Government intend to withdraw income support, housing benefit and council tax benefit. The costs for children in care, and the damage to the health of those children-and their families, will be immense and immeasurable. The cost of homelessness will soar, as probably will the cost of detention in prison. I put it to the House in all good faith that the costs incurred will far outweigh the savings that the Government seek to make—all to assuage the far right, xenophobic wing of the Tory party.
I conclude with the words of the Social Security Advisory Committee on these proposals at paragraphs 61 and 62. I ask noble Lords to take these words very seriously:
"We do not see how these people would be able to support themselves. As they have qualified for income-related benefits they are by definition without adequate income or capital on which to live. They are unlikely to return home. For many it would be too dangerous and the majority will simply not have the means. Nor can it be assumed that they will be taken care of by the network of support services provided by local authorities, voluntary groups or charities".
268
Local authorities have made that clear.
"Even if they had the resources, they do not have sufficient planning time".
The report continues:
"The reality of the proposals is that thousands of men, women and children will be left with no means of providing themselves with food or shelter. Many will have no option but to live on the streets of our major cities and ports. Health professionals have warned that, given the vulnerability of many asylum seekers due to their already precarious physical or mental health, some may die".
That is the advice, not from me, not from the welfare groups, not even from the Churches, but from the Government's own Social Security Advisory Committee. Can we make one last plea to the Government and endorse what its own committee called for; namely, that these regulations be withdrawn?
Earl Russell: My Lords, it is a convention of parliamentary life in this House that we express ourselves with as much decent moderation as we can manage. For that reason I begin by thanking the Government for the concession they made over the timetable for these regulations to allow them to be freely debated in both Houses. However, I hope it is understood on that side of the Chamber, as it is on this, that decent moderation is harder to achieve on some occasions than it is on others. For us, this is a very difficult occasion indeed on which to achieve it.
First, I join the noble Baroness in expressing my regret that the Government rejected the advice of the Social Security Advisory Committee—not, I regret to say, for the first time. That is an expert committee and it deserves attention. I also express my regret that the Government, having felt that they had to proceed with the regulations, did not embody them in the Bill as, with the concession on the timing, they could perfectly well have done. That would have made it easier for the opinion of this House to be expressed upon them.
The Minister relied very heavily on the Government's arguments about bogus refugees. I rather agree with my honourable friend Mr. Alton that we are dealing with bogus refusals. I sat through the whole of the debates on the 1993 Asylum and Immigration Appeals Bill. I shall never be able to bring myself to understand the idea that anyone who does not pass the tests of that Bill is a bogus refugee. In expressing that view I may be speaking for a considerable body of international and legal opinion.
I deeply regret the decision to withdraw benefits from people who do not declare themselves at the port of entry. It is rather like telling somebody who is in the water and on the point of drowning that he must explain how he got there before he is allowed to clamber into the boat. It is not in the real world. In particular, people who have been the victims of torture—too many of those with whom we are dealing—are often in an extremely confused state. Indeed, amnesia as a result of torture is perfectly possible. Such people may find it difficult to tell their stories.
It could also be difficult for reasons of language. How many in this Chamber know the word for asylum in Bulgarian? I for one certainly do not. It is also extremely difficult, even for those such as myself who have rather

269
more experience of them than we would wish, to understand exactly what is meant in forms emanating from the Home Office or the Department of Social Security. A desire for expert help in filling in forms on which one's life may depend is a perfectly proper concern.
The refusal of benefits to those who do not apply at the port of entry is not only a danger to asylum seekers; it is also a slap in the face to the voluntary organisations which put a great deal of time, effort and conscience into attempts to assist those who are in need of help. Many people are entitled to take offence.
I hear what the Minister said about the withdrawal of benefit pending appeal and putting people in the same position as British citizens. I do not need to remind the Minister of what was said on that issue when we discussed it at considerable length and with very considerable heat during the Jobseekers Bill. The Minister thought that the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis of Heigham, had expressed herself rather more freely than was proper. I entirely understood why the noble Baroness spoke in that way. By praying that in aid, the Minister invites the reply that two wrongs do not make a right.
There is also a considerable difference between the cases. A person in this country who is refused benefit may have relatives and friends. He may know all kinds of things, such as where to find the Salvation Army, which a Bulgarian asylum seeker does not know. He has a great many ways in which he can make shift, which somebody coming to this country for the first time without knowing the language does not have. So even though both cases are wrong, in my opinion the latter is a great deal more wrong than the other.
I am glad that there is help for local authorities. What is the cost of that help likely to be? I heard what the noble Baroness had to say about the cost of taking a child into care. Will the Minister confirm that there is no plan to repeal Sections 17 and 20 of the Children Act?
The Minister attempted to occupy the high moral ground. Let me reply by attempting to occupy the practical ground and ask what in fact will happen next. These people have been refused benefit. They have appealed. As the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, confirmed to me in a Written Answer just before Christmas, the Government cannot deport them. I am grateful for that answer. The Home Office has surely not yet forgotten the case of In Re M.
These people will not be in a position to make their way home at their own cost, even if they were able obtain entry when they got there. That is especially true when those people are the economic migrants about whom the Government express so much anxiety. They cannot go away. They cannot work in the first six months and will often find it extremely difficult to work thereafter, especially if they know no English. So they are trapped here. They cannot work; and they do not have any benefits.
What will happen to them? They may, of course, beg. They will, I am certain, become a call on private charity, but that is likely to be such a burden that all those who oppose these regulations should, in propriety, declare an
270
interest. By an interest I mean a pecuniary interest. I do not believe that, by ourselves, we shall be able to support that burden. That raises the possibility, which I should be ashamed to see realised, of the UNHCR opening refugee camps on British soil. We may feel that that is fanciful. It would certainly raise the possibility of a very considerable health hazard. The rate of TB among the homeless on the London streets is 200 times the national average. So it would not only be inhuman but also expensive and against our own interest.
Once again, humanity is the best policy. If the Government cannot answer the question of what will happen to the asylum seekers from whom benefit is withdrawn, they should postpone the implementation of regulations until they can.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I must say that I have heard a few extravagant reactions to Statements in this House, but this afternoon takes the prize. I should like to go back and put the figures in the Secretary of State's Statement in a more simple form, which might help bring home to the Opposition the real facts.
Taking 1994, of every 100 applicants for asylum, four were successful, 17 were given exceptional leave to remain and 79 had their applications refused. Needless to say, almost all appealed—sensibly, in their own interest, because it keeps them on benefit. Three appeals were granted, 61 were dismissed and 15 were withdrawn. So, at the end of the day, seven out of 100 were accepted as genuine refugees, 17 were given exceptional leave to remain and 76 were refused asylum. Members of this House and other people who comment on the issue should try to hold in their heads those simple figures when they come to judge what will happen as a result of the Government's actions.
Of course, the Social Security Advisory Committee took the views of various bodies. I looked at them but I did not notice that the British taxpayer was among them. One of the problems of government is the need to take the interests of the whole country into consideration.
We listened to and read carefully what the Social Security Advisory Committee said. The noble Baroness breathlessly quoted parts of it. That was largely directed at the transitional arrangements and, as I explained, we have considerably altered the transitional arrangements from those we originally envisaged for the reasons I mentioned. I believe therefore that many of the problems posed by the committee which relate to the transitional arrangements have now been removed. Those people currently on benefit will continue to receive that benefit—13,000, as I mentioned in the Statement—until the next stage of their appeal or application is heard.
The noble Baroness described asylum seekers collectively as being "vulnerable" and "frightened", and said that it was too dangerous for them to return to their own countries. But my original figure of 100 must be borne in mind. Out of 100 only seven were considered to be genuine refugees; indeed, 76 were refused. What the noble Baroness says therefore is not: the case.

271
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the noble Baroness discussed the question of port of entry. In future, if somebody comes to claim asylum in this country and applies at the port of entry, he will be allowed benefit until the first decision is made by the Home Office. That is the new arrangement that we are putting in place. It relates only to those people who apply from "in-country".
To listen to the noble Baroness, it would not surprise me if most of your Lordships thought that hardly anyone applied at the port of entry. But that is not true. More than one-third apply at the port of entry. Therefore that rather sets aside the suggestion that the immigrants are so scared when they come to Heathrow that they are too frightened to ask a British immigration officer for asylum. Indeed, during the transitional period of November and December the numbers applying at port of entry actually increased. The noble Earl and the noble Baroness should at least try to obtain some mathematical basis for their extravagant statements.
The noble Earl would like everyone, both British citizens and asylum seekers, to be allowed to keep their benefit during the appeal process. That may be all very well for the Liberal Democrats, but the rest of us have to work out how much that will cost the taxpayer. Just as we experience it with asylum seekers, people would appeal simply in order to stay in benefit. That is exactly what happens.
Remarks were made about the regulations; that we are trying to smuggle them through. The regulations were laid today and that will allow debate before they come into effect on 5th February. One of the problems we encounter in the whole business of judging asylum seekers is the weight of numbers. As we have attempted to put more resources and people into helping to make decisions quickly, the actual numbers coming to this country have increased even further. The whole system has become overwhelmed. One of the reasons why it takes time to process applications is that so many are bogus.
Beyond that, when we reach the appeal stage, the number of appeals which are interrupted, asking for adjournments while they are on-going—the reason is often simply to spin out the process in order to continue to receive benefit—is also increasing. We must remember that three-quarters of those applying are not actually granted permission to stay in this country as refugees or exceptional leave to appeal.
The system I am outlining this afternoon is a perfectly fair and reasonable one. It deals with the problems that we are facing and that other countries face and are dealing with in a similar and related manner. We hope that it will reduce the incentive for people to come here and live on benefit. It will reduce the incentive especially for those who come here telling our immigration officers that they are coming for a holiday or a visit and, after a few weeks or months here—perhaps when it is time to go home—they promptly decide that they would like to claim asylum.
272
As I said at the beginning, the noble Earl and the noble Baroness failed to take the figures on board. Their extravagant language would be much more appropriate if three-quarters of applicants were found to be asylum seekers rather than the other way around.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that many of us are glad that the Government have had the courage to tackle this matter? For a considerable time it has been an obvious and growing scandal that people come to this country largely drawn by the attractiveness of our social security system. They claim to be refugees whereas, as the Minister said, only a comparatively small proportion of them in fact are genuine refugees; most of them come to this country because they believe it to be a nice country in which to live with a generous social security system on which they can live quite happily. I am glad that the Government have had the courage to try to tackle the problem, conscious as they must be of the fact that a great deal of emotion will be raised on the subject. We heard a little of it earlier this afternoon.
Will my noble friend the Minister spell out in a little more detail what the financial savings resulting from the new arrangements will be for the British taxpayer? He mentioned £200 million. Either the noble Baroness or the noble Earl said that, because of other charges that will arise, the reduction in costs to the British taxpayer will be much less. I shall be grateful if my noble friend will put clearly before the House what the Government anticipate will be the financial saving as a result of the regulations.
It must be clear that at the moment we are spending a good deal of British taxpayers' money on cases for which there is little justification. It will be interesting and important for your Lordships to have in mind when we consider the regulations exactly what the Government contemplate the saving will be. My view is that it will be substantial. I believe that the British taxpayer resents being taxed to provide support on a general scale for a large number of people in respect of whom it is not justified.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend who has had considerable experience in days past of the problems of the benefit system and how to control it.
We envisage that, once the system is up and running, we shall be making savings of the order of £200 million a year—the figure quoted by the noble Baroness. Those savings will not be made in the next financial year because of the generous transitional arrangements I outlined. The savings will be greater if we can reduce the number of migrants who come here; if we can reduce the number of bogus asylum seekers. They put costs onto local government; for example, through the education system and so forth. Therefore, while my £200 million saving relates to the benefit system alone—I am sure people will approve of that—there will

273
be other savings. Fewer people will come here and further costs will not be imposed on local government services.
The Lord Bishop of Ripon: My Lords, does the Minister realise that within the Churches there are many who share the anger and dismay expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell? Does he realise that we, too, object to the word "bogus" in relation to those applications that are rejected? It is not that the applications are bogus, but rather that those applicants have not been able to jump through specific hoops. That is the language that we would choose to use.
Furthermore, does the Minister realise that a considerable problem is being raised through the regulations? Voluntary agencies, the Churches among them, are attempting to respond. Does he realise, for instance, that the diocese of Southwark is attempting to respond to the situation? Are the Government prepared to put any resources towards the voluntary agencies that are attempting to meet the need?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I cannot agree with the right reverend Prelate that just because the applications have been refused I am somehow not allowed to come to the conclusion that the applications were not ill-founded in the beginning. If the right reverend Prelate takes a look at the countries from which many of those applicants come he will be hard put to explain how people could come from those countries, which most of us consider stable and democratic, and find themselves within the rules of being refugees.
We give money to various organisations. We give £1.4 million to the Refugee Council, we give £500,000 to Refugee Action and we give a number of other more regional bodies about £30,000 each in order to do the work they do. We are always happy to discuss with them the kind of problems which arise on this difficult question. I hope that the right reverend Prelate will look at the figures and also look at the rising trend which has led to an almost ten-fold increase in the number of people applying in this country over the past decade.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I should declare an interest in that until last June I was Director of the Refugee Council, to which the Minister has just referred. I put it to the Minister that if people are feeling emotional it is because there is genuine anger and dismay at what the Government have announced today. On the Minister's own figures, 24 per cent. of asylum seekers are allowed to stay in this country. Will he confirm that roughly the same proportion of in-country applicants as of port applicants are allowed to stay in this country? Twenty-four per cent. is a fairly large figure.
Secondly, as regards denying asylum seekers who are appealing against a refusal any income support while they are awaiting a decision, is that not tantamount to saying that there is no effective appeal system for such people? If they cannot afford to sustain themselves, they either have to beg or possibly go back to the dangers from which they have fled.
274
Thirdly, the Minister referred to other European Union countries. Can he mention any European Union country which neither provides an adequate financial basis of support for asylum seekers nor provides accommodation and other subsistence for them? It seems to me that we are going to do neither one nor the other. That leaves asylum seekers begging on the streets.
Finally, there is an answer to the difficulties that he has been describing. The problem is, as my noble friend Lady Hollis said very clearly a few moments ago, that asylum seekers are having to wait sometimes years before a decision is made about their asylum claims. That is unfair to them and it is costly for the country. What we need is not systems for determining asylum claims which are unfair and unjust but enough staff in the Home Office so that decisions can be made fairly, properly and speedily. In that way, the Government would save the money that they are talking about. But it should not be done by forcing the victims of persecution the world over, a small number of whom seek safety in this country, from having any means to exist while they are waiting for a decision about their futures.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I shall not repeat the figures I mentioned earlier but I do think that the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, whose interest in this subject I know well, should bear them in mind. As I said earlier, one of the problems which leads to delay for genuine asylum seekers—the 7 per cent.—is that so many come without a genuine reason for seeking asylum in this country. They simply clog up the system. We have put in more resources. We have put in £37 million more just recently. We have attempted to improve the system but it has simply been overwhelmed by more people deciding to come here. We are currently trying a fast-track system and as a result of the Asylum and Immigration Bill we will be making further improvements in trying to make the procedure very much quicker.
But there is the other problem which I mentioned when it comes to appeals. Almost everyone appeals. Few of them have real grounds for appeal, but almost everyone appeals because that keeps them in this country and on benefit for very many months. Many of them adjourn, adjourn and adjourn in order to draw out the process. That is part of the problem, which I fully accept is a serious one, when it comes to genuine asylum seekers.
With regard to denying support during the appeal, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State makes it clear in the Statement that it puts asylum seekers on all fours with United Kingdom citizens, who are not allowed benefit while they appeal. That is proper and right. What we want to able to do—should like to think that the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, would agree with us on this—is deal with the genuine asylum seeker quickly and expeditiously. The genuine asylum seeker will be able to apply at the port. He will get all the benefits while the Home Office officials decide on his case. I would hope that if we can somehow slim down the process so that the officials are not being overwhelmed by numbers they will be able to improve, if I may so call it, their decision at the first instance.

275
In regard to other countries, many of our European colleagues have strengthened their asylum measures since 1993. They have taken steps along the same lines as our own. That has led to a fall in the number of asylum seekers in most of the countries of the European Union.
Baroness Elles: My Lords, with regard to what my noble friend has just said about asylum seekers in other European Union countries, can my noble friend confirm that the numbers have decreased dramatically and that the numbers in the United Kingdom applying for asylum are somewhere equal to the total number of asylum seekers in all other European Union countries? Can he further confirm that the measures taken by those countries both as to the treatment of asylum seekers at the port of entry and the kind of benefits that they are receiving show that we have been way ahead of any other European Union country in the way in which we have been treating asylum seekers up to now?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for her support on this matter. As she has perhaps picked up in one of my previous answers, most of our European friends have taken steps in quite recent legislation to strengthen their asylum measures. It is difficult—the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, mentioned this—to make direct comparisons because Denmark, Germany and The Netherlands generally use reception centres and hostels. The French give benefit but only for 12 months. At the end of 12 months it stops. What is interesting is that all the steps they have taken mean that they have seen a decline in the number of applicants in the past year or two while we have seen an increase. A decade ago we were running at 3 or 4 per cent. of the total number of asylum seekers in the whole of Europe. In 1994 we were up to 13.2 per cent. A look at the figures will show that in most European countries over the past year or two, as a result of their tightening their legislation against economic migrants, the graph has turned down. Ours has gone into a steeper and steeper increase.
Lord Shaw of Northstead: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that our embassies abroad do a very good but difficult job in examining the applications that arc made to them and that they give full warning to all applicants for visas as to the consequences, if those applicants are successful, of seeking to change at a later date their reason for coming to this country? If the consequences are not borne out in fact, will it not make the job of our embassies that much more difficult in the future?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, my noble friend is right in saying that our embassies abroad, especially those in countries from which a great number of asylum seekers come, do look very carefully at applications for visas, for example. They ask people, "Why are you going to the United Kingdom?" They may say, "We are going to visit", or "for education" or "business". If the embassy is satisfied that the application appears to be genuine a visa is given. The fact is that many of the applicants do genuinely visit on
276
business and then return. However, having told one story to the embassy, a lot of them get to this country and a few weeks or months later they decide to change their story.
When I look at some of the countries from which a significant number of these people come I find India, Pakistan and Ghana included among them. I really wonder whether there is justification for suggesting that people from these countries, which I believe we all consider to be reasonably stable democratic countries, are genuine asylum seekers.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, can the Minister tell us what provision has been made for hostel accommodation with feeding arrangements? If benefits are going to be withdrawn while appeals are taking place, can additional provision be made so that these people will not be sleeping and starving on the streets and begging from voluntary organisations?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, the noble Baroness makes an accusation which has been made a number of times. I pose this question to her and to the House and get back to the figures I have mentioned. At the end of the procedure—which sometimes takes months; sometimes 18 months—and they are on benefit, many are eventually refused and they cease to have benefit. I suggest to the noble Baroness that the people who will be refused and put off benefit rather earlier than 18 months will do the same as those people who come off benefit after 18 months currently do; that is, go back to their own country or find some other way of looking after themselves.
Lord Elton: My Lords, as one who is not a xenophobe and who does not come from the right of the party and whose doctor has repeatedly failed to get a knee-jerk reaction from either leg, may I first say that I am connected with, or a member of, two organisations which are interested in refugees, but I do not speak on behalf of either and I have not consulted them. These are my own private views and they need to be said for my noble friend's comfort.
It is impossible to look at the disproportionate flow of refugees into this country and the disproportionate number of those who do not qualify as rating refugee status without concluding that something is now wrong with the system and that the Government have a duty to do something about it. It is quite understandable that the subject develops great heat and passion because anyone who has seen cases of genuine immigrant hardship, whether political or economic, cannot help being stirred to compassion.
But this piece of legislation is not directed at dealing with economic migrants, but with political refugees. There must be a hoop through which they must pass, as the right reverend Prelate put it, in order that they can he identified. Having got through all that, there remains a concern that the system will not achieve what is intended effectively in the initial stages. I was relieved to hear of the 13,000 who will continue to receive the existing treatment because they are already applicants.
One cannot help thinking that there will be some cases of confusion at the point of entry. Is my noble friend saying that that can never be taken into account

277
as a result of the removal of the Secretary of State's discretion? I imagine that the total volume of immigration under this head will diminish as word gets round what the new circumstances are. That will accelerate the appeals procedure, but it will still take some time, particularly in the initial stages.
I have not floated this idea anywhere, but it seems to me that the voluntary agencies have a great deal of knowledge of the system and many of them have a pretty accurate idea of what the result of an appeal is going to be. If those agencies had the courage of their convictions and provided from their own resources—and, I agree, at great expense—support for those applicants whom they thought had a good chance of succeeding, will the Government consider refunding that money to the supporting agency in the event of a successful appeal?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his remarks and especially for his drawing attention to the changes that we made between the initial decisions that we took and these final regulations about the transitional arrangements. I say to him that as regards the future—and perhaps I should have answered the noble Earl, Lord Russell, on this—my right honourable friends the Secretary of State for Health and the Secretary of State for the Environment will be discussing in detail with the local authority associations how we might judge what extra impact may fall on their resources in the future. For every bit of extra impact that may fall on their resources they will have savings, as my noble friend rightly points out, as the number of applicants coming to this country actually diminishes. As he rightly said, that should mean an acceleration of the appeals procedure.
I believe that it is properly compassionate to make sure that the rules we operate are such that the genuine do get in. The current system makes it very difficult to winnow out the genuine from the bogus. I believe that the changes we have made will very much help that process, which will be to the benefit of those who actually do need our protection.

Family Law Bill [H.L.]
4.36 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Mackay of Clashfern.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Lord Ampthill) in the Chair.]
Lord Stallard Lord Stallard moved Amendment No. 1:
Before Clause 1, insert the following new clause—
GENERAL OBJECTIVES
(" . The general objectives of this Act are as follows—
278

(a) to support the institution of marriage;

(b) to ensure that all practicable steps with a view to preventing the irretrievable breakdown of marriage are taken;

(c) to ensure that the parties understand the practical consequences of divorce before taking any irreversible decision; and

(d) to minimise the bitterness and hostility between the parties and reduce the trauma for the children.").

The noble Lord said: I have read and re-read the report of the debate at Second Reading of this Bill and have had discussions with people involved at the sharp end of the effects of divorce on couples and their children and other family relations. We always seem to forget that in any divorce situation there are usually two sets of grandparents. They are always left out of the discussions, but they are very much involved and concerned when a break-up occurs. That is why I have mentioned other family relations. I am certainly very concerned about some of the proposals in the Bill as it stands and that is why I am moving this amendment.
When I read the White Paper last year I admit to being cautiously optimistic about the objectives outlined in it and that is repeated verbatim in my amendment: certainly paragraphs (a), (b) (c) and (c) are verbatim. However, the Bill came as a disappointrnent. In my view it does not reflect the objectives set out in the White Paper of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and cannot provide those conditions without suitable amendment to the Bill.
In his opening remarks at Second Reading the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor quoted from the Scriptures. I said then, and I say again, that I totally respect and admire his Christian background and quotations. I am a little perturbed that, probably because of time, he could mention only St. Mark, Chapter 10, Verses 4–5 to justify the position. I would have been happier if he had continued quoting from Chapter 10 and included Verses 6 to 9. They read:
"But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; And they twain shall he one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder".
When approached by the disciples in the house He said to them:
"Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her. And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery".
I believe that that is a fairly reasonable expansion of those particular verses in the Scriptures as regards the marriage state.
I could mention many other such references. Indeed, I counted 42 in all, all of which underline the Christian approach to marriage. I have checked with a number of friends of other religions, and many other religions have the same appreciation of the importance of the basis of marriage as does the Christian religion. From where I stand that seems a fairly good reason for taking a careful look at some of the proposals in the Bill and their possible effects.
We already know that since the introduction of divorce legislation in the last century the legal understanding of marriage has radically changed.

279
Whenever there is a change in divorce legislation the institution of marriage always seems to suffer in some respect or another. From being understood and defined in law as indissoluble, marriage has become a temporary union in both law and common understanding. I read an article in the Daily Mail recently by William Oddie—it is not my usual paper but I am reading everything to do with divorce and I happened to stumble on that article—in which he stated that if the proposals in the Bill become law as they stand,
"marriage, once a solemn contract intended to last for life, will become an essentially temporary arrangement which either partner can end at his or her whim with a mere 12 months' notice".
That has worried and perplexed many people who are trying to understand the Bill. If William Oddie and many other people are right, we need to reconsider the provisions and to give guidance to those who are perplexed and worried by them.
On the question of quickie divorces, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor claimed that three-quarters of divorcing couples cite intolerable behaviour or adultery in order to get a so-called quickie divorce. However, we understand that statistics from the Office of Population, Censuses and Surveys show that only 32 per cent. of divorces—not the 75 per cent. claimed—are gained within 4 months. That makes a huge difference to our understanding of the whole issue. It means that proposals to introduce a formal wait of one year are largely irrelevant because the majority of people already wait that long, and sometimes much longer. I have met many people who have waited much longer than a year and many more who have waited longer than is necessary for a quickie divorce.
The Institute of Economic Affairs has published an excellent booklet which I recommend that noble Lords read between now and remaining stages. Last year a well-informed series of essays by experts who have thoroughly researched the subject was published. Some of those writers are the most knowledgable experts in their field—not just in this country, but internationally. The booklet is entitled Just a Piece of Paper? In his introduction the editor states:
"As divorce becomes more easily available so more people will resort to it as an escape from difficult situations: divorce becomes the first option rather than the last. With divorce available effectively on demand and without the consent of the other partner, the incentive to invest resources—both personal and financial—in a relationship is diminished. Marriage becomes temporary and provisional rather than binding and permanent. It may be used by one or both parties as a base from which to make forays into … pools of possible alternative partners, searching for something younger/richer/sexier or just nicer".
Again, we have informed opinion speaking out against the possible effects of some of the proposals contained in the Bill. It has been my contention, and that of many other people, that the Bill makes divorce easier. That is what is worrying us.
Cohabitation will become even more popular and enticing than it is at the moment. Those of us who live in the inner cities know that the incidence of marriage is reducing. There has been a huge reduction in the number of marriages. I could give the Committee statistics for the next half an hour to show the effect of
280
the reduction in the number of marriages and of the increase in the number of people who are cohabiting in "relationships", "partnerships" and God knows what else rather than in marriages. Cohabitation has increased every time the divorce laws have changed. I give one statistic. In 1991▵92, 30 per cent. of single women between the ages of 25 and 34 were cohabiting. That statistic should not give us any pleasure whatsoever when we consider the effects of cohabitation on society as a whole. The fact is that cohabitation now presents a serious challenge to marriage. Indeed, I believe that a serious working party is being set up to discuss the demographic changes that could come about as a result of the increase in cohabitation and the decrease in the number of marriages.
In my view, in its present form the Bill does little to support the institution of marriage. That is why I have made one of my objectives in the amendment,
"to support the institution of marriage".
I believe that the Bill should support the institution of marriage more strongly and firmly than it does.
In pushing mediation as an option before any attempt has been made to reconcile couples or to bring them together before divorce proceedings are initiated, the Bill fails to take the necessary steps to ensure that all practical measures are being taken to prevent the irretrievable breakdown of a marriage. That is another objective. The Bill will fail again if it does not provide a period of reconciliation before mediation. As I tried to say on Second Reading, there is a huge difference between mediation and reconciliation. That difference is stark in both the White Paper and the Bill. Mediation is for the future. It assumes that the marriage has ended and that the couple are splitting up. It will deal with questions such as, "Who gets the video? Who gets the house? What about access to the children?" That is mediation as envisaged in the Bill.
I believe that a period of reconciliation before that is much more important. Many couples might decide to separate on the basis of a row or a series of rows but could be spoken to and guided, provided that the right sort of guidance is available. That is where the money should be spent. We are spending billions of pounds—we are certainly spending millions—on teaching children in sex education classes how to fit condoms and how to deal with various problems, but how much are we spending on teaching children how to communicate with each other, how to handle parenting and marriage and how to discuss all the problems that they will definitely experience? Children need to be taught such things and there are various organisations that could teach them. The Churches could do so. There are many people who could help to reconcile couples who are having difficulties with their marriage. All that we need are the resources. I am saying that we could spend a little money and save a lot if we were to spend some money in that way rather than on the social security benefits that are often needed when a marriage ends.
The objectives that I have outlined cannot be met unless there is a period of some months in which to concentrate on reconciliation. It is only when

281
reconciliation has failed completely that mediation and counselling should take place. I have no doubt that a period of reconciliation will help to minimise bitterness and hostility between the parties. Reconciliation is therefore important even if it achieves no more than that. Even where there is ultimately a decision to divorce, if it is an amicable decision and there is no hatred or animosity that will help to minimise the trauma and difficulties for the children affected by it. Therefore, reconciliation is extremely important. Indeed, in my book, spending time on reconciliation should be a top priority.
More attention should be paid to the studies that are being carried out into the effects of divorce on children who are left behind in a one-parent family knowing that their other parent has disappeared. There have been studies—mainly the Oxford study—which have proved that sometimes, not always, it is more difficult for a child to grow up in a one-parent family than in a rocky, unhappy marriage. It is more traumatic when one parent disappears for good. We should pay a little more attention to such research and include some of it in our deliberations on the Bill.
The Bill should be judged, in our discussion on amendments, according to whether it meets those general objectives. I should like the general objectives set out at the beginning of the Bill. We can then judge the Bill to see where and when it falls short of those general objectives. If it does not meet them, I know that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will consider suitable amendments for submission on Report. Those who will be expected to implement the Bill, and those directly involved in marriage problems and breakdowns, but who will seldom be aware of our discussions or aware of the various clauses, should know the aims and the priorities which I have outlined in the amendment.
I do not profess to be a lawyer, or to have any special legal knowledge, but neither do millions of other people who will be affected by the Bill. None of them is a lawyer. It is up to us as legislators to ensure that the law will be clear to them and clearly understood by those who will be mediating, counselling and so on. I hope that the amendment will be accepted eventually, and that some guidance will be given right at the beginning of the Bill. There are precedents for such guidance. Some guidance was given in the Children Act 1989 and in the Education Act 1993. I hope that the noble and learned Lord will give the amendment his most serious consideration and reply to it on Report. I beg to move.
Baroness Young: I support the amendment which was so ably moved by the noble Lord, Lord Stallard. It is based of course, as he said, on the principles which were set out in the White Paper. We would all agree that they are unimpeachable objectives and ones that we would all like to see carried out.
Nearly every Member of this place who spoke on Second Reading wanted to see marriage buttressed. To set out the proposed statement at the start of the Bill will, as the noble Lord said, enable us to look at all the subsequent amendments in relation to those general principles to see how far we are standing by them. That
282
is something at which we shall look. So I hope that when my noble and learned friend comes to consider all these matters, as he said on Second Reading he would do, he will feel that this is an amendment that he can accept.
There are four unimpeachable objectives set out in the amendment. It is good to say that we want to minimise bitterness in divorce, but one of the objectives at which we shall have to look is to recognise that it is better still to save the marriage in the first place, because the damage done to children in the course of a divorce is much longer lasting than the damage done by quarrelling parents. All the modern research shows that to be so. It is an important point onto which we should hold. We shall be coming to later amendments which deal with those points so I shall not elaborate on them now.
I have been asked by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester to say that he supports not just this amendment but many of the following amendments. He hopes very much that my noble and learned friend will look at them carefully as we debate the various amendments to the Bill.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: I could be persuaded to favour this general objectives clause in this Rill, although from a different standpoint from that of my noble friend Lord Stallard; broadly speaking, so that it can be improved upon and particularly in the area of encouraging reconciliation. In my view, in its present form the Bill passes the standards, the objectives set by the amendment.
I know that parliamentary draftsmen sometimes say that they dislike broad purpose clauses, but it is sometimes wise to have them, as Parliament has recognised. The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack will himself recall that he thought it right to include a broad purpose clause as Section I of his Legal Aid Act 1988.
The great merit of my noble friend's general objectives clause is that it will dispel misunderstanding about the objectives which the particular provisions of the Bill aim to further. My noble friend's first objective is to support the institution of marriage. That of course has my full support and would have the full support of the Committee, but this is a Bill about whose purposes there is great misunderstanding, especially on the part of those who are trying to extend from a year to 18 months or more the mandatory period for reflection and consideration.
The first point is that the Bill does not, in practice, make divorce easier. On the contrary, in its present form, providing as it does a mandatory year for reflection and consideration, it strengthens the institution of marriage much more than does the present law. I yield to no one in support for the institution of marriage. Marriage should not lightly be undertaken nor lightly set aside, but when judging legislation brought before us, the first base is to take a hard and realistic look at what it will replace.
Today it is the fact that about 75 per cent. of divorces are quickie divorces, granted within a few months of the divorce petition. The mandatory period of a year for

283
reflection and consideration imposed by the Bill therefore means in practice that in 75 per cent. of cases divorce will be substantially delayed. I urge the opponents of that change—those who would reinstate fault-based divorce and exclude divorce on any other ground, or those who would lengthen substantially the one-year period for reflection and consideration to 18 months or even more—to take on board how the current divorce laws work in practice.
The truth is that divorce today is attended by no greater formality than renewing a driving licence. It is all done through the post. Typically, the petition will be based on adultery or unreasonable behaviour. The petitions are never, except perhaps in a handful of cases throughout the country, defended at any trial of the allegations. What happens is that the petition is sent through the post to the local county court. Then a copy is sent through the post to the other party by the court itself. The other party is invited to indicate whether there is to be a consent or a defence. In the overwhelming majority of cases, there is consent.
There are two basic reasons why that is almost always so. When matters have reached that stage, the parties appreciate that their marriage is dead. They recognise the futility of prolonging the agony. Life cannot he breathed into a dead union. In practice, the Legal Aid Board will not grant legal aid to defend a divorce petition, as the noble and learned Lord will confirm. That would be to apply public funds in a futile exercise.
Once the consents come in, the district judge of the County Court will list two dozen or so cases for 10.30 in the morning for the pronouncement of divorce decrees. He will intone that a decree nisi of divorce is pronounced in all the cases in front of him that morning, en bloc, in a single sentence. He will not even terminate each marriage separately. That is how our courts at present behave in relation to the institution of marriage when setting marriages aside.
Six months after pronouncement of the decree nisi that decree will be made absolute and the marriage will be terminated. The interests of the children are not addressed until this short six-week period. In theory the court must be satisfied that the arrangements for the children are satisfactory or, a lesser test, are the best that can be devised in the circumstances.
Perhaps I may take a moment to describe to the Committee how this investigation is judicially conducted. One morning, at about ten o'clock, approximately two dozen cases will be listed for the district judge to consider the parties' arrangements for their children. So 48 people will turn up legally unrepresented. They will sit altogether waiting their turn to be called in to see the district judge who will sit in his private room. The nearest analogy is waiting one's turn in the family doctor's surgery. On average, it takes about five minutes for each couple. In essence, the judge is told what the parties have themselves agreed and that, in practice, is what the judge accepts. I am not criticising the judges; far from it. What I am speaking about is real life. A mandatory year for reflection and consideration
284
during which mediation takes place is surely so much more seemly than the conveyor-belt process which I have described.
The Bill is supportive of the institution of marriage. There will be no more quickie divorces but a year for reflection and consideration during which the mediation process will follow its course. There is a central point about mediation which the mediators concerned understand fully; that mediation is not about reconciliation. The mediator is not a reconciliator. He is a mediator of proposed solutions for the parties to try to agree; parties who have agreed that they must part.
That, we can assure the mediators, we recognise, but it brings me to the second of my noble friend's objectives which is to ensure that all practical steps with a view to preventing the irretrievable breakdown of marriage are taken. That very proper objective, in the name of saving marriages wherever possible, can be fulfilled only if the Bill recognises in the clearest terms the public interest in promoting reconciliation. It does not. On the contrary, by Clause 7(5) and (6) it penalises attempts at reconciliation by suspending the mandatory period of a year while reconciliation is being attempted. It operates as a serious disincentive against attempting reconciliation. For that reason I have brought forward Amendment No. 40 which is designed to encourage reconciliation. I do not, of course, attempt to speak to that amendment now.
My noble friend Lord Stallard, in his notable speech on Second Reading, drew attention to the sparse reference to reconciliation in the Bill and to the failure of the Bill to encourage reconciliation positively. His second objective will be better fulfilled if there is some statutory underpinning for reconciliation. It must be accepted that people cannot be compelled to attempt reconciliation.
Let us look at my noble friend's third objective which is to ensure that the parties understand the practical consequences of divorce before taking any irreversible decision. I believe that that objective is met by the Bill through its provisions for mediation. The mediation process will bring home to the parties what divorce will mean for them. They will be free, with this knowledge, to pull back from the brink. Disincentives to trying to become reconciled should be removed but no law on earth can compel them to live together. Although it may not in practice be necessary, there may be a case for making my noble friend's third objective a statutory duty on mediators. He may wish to consider that.
I turn to my noble friend's fourth objective which is to minimise the bitterness and hostility between the parties and to reduce the trauma for the children. I wholly endorse that objective but I firmly believe that to extend the one-year period to 18 months or more would exacerbate, not minimise, the bitterness and hostility between the parties and the trauma for the children. That is the test by which the one-year period is to be judged. This morning's press is replete with stories that the noble and learned Lord is ready to yield and extend the period. I hope that however these leaks have been inspired—all the articles say Government sources—they are leaks in which there is no foundation.

285
We gave the noble and learned Lord's Domestic Violence Bill bipartisan support. We lament that in this Bill the noble and learned Lord has watered down the domestic violence provisions in order to meet spurious objections from a section of his own party; a section as uninformed as it is unrepresentative. His earlier domestic violence provisions, which he thought were right, as did I, were agreed between the parties and for our part we will not depart from that agreement. On the contrary, we will try to return some steel to his soul so that he will feel able to continue to agree with himself.
I turn to the one-year period. I am confident that the overwhelming majority of my colleagues are satisfied that the period of one year is right. The broad bipartisanship which I would hope could accompany the passage of a Bill of this kind—although I recognise that it is a matter for individual conscience—would be severely prejudiced were the noble and learned Lord to yield to the attempt to extend the period of one year. We could not accept that. I therefore urge the noble and learned Lord to reflect on the attitudinising that accompanies the demand that the year be extended to 18 months or beyond. The affection of rectitude to no sensible purpose is always to be abhorred.
What is the practical point of extending the year to 18 months? A year is quite enough for reflection and consideration; it is quite enough for mediation. One cannot compel people to live in a loveless union; one cannot breathe life into what is dead. The Government's proposals at paragraph 4.13 were right. They state that a longer period than a year would increase distress and that:
"it would act as an encouragement to walk out of the marriage, form a new relationship, and take on new family responsibilities before fulfilling the obligations and responsibilities towards the previous marriage and children. A longer period would also result in greater distress to the children, and increase their insecurity about arrangements for their future".
I agree with every word of that.
The children of relationship number one surely want to know where they are; they do not want delay to no purpose. No law on earth will prevent people making new relationships and having children within them. Those children will be innocent as will the children of relationship number one. The children of relationship number two also have their legitimacy to be considered.
As a matter of principle, I believe that my noble friend's objectives are well judged. They dispel misunderstanding. They are sound standards against which to judge the particular provisions of the Bill. As matters of principle, they have our support.
We are legislating about the lives of people and innocent children. It is rationality that should inform our debates, not attempts to claim a spurious, moral high ground—an imaginary world not inhabited by those for whom we must legislate. Above all, we must legislate in the spirit of realism and not moral romanticism.
The Lord Bishop of Oxford: On this Bench we firmly support the proposed objectives set out in the amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Stallard, has
286
expressed the worry that the Bill will make divorce easier. That is an understandable fear. However, the Bill as it stands does provide a whole year for reflection, consideration and reconsideration. That is a good period of time in which to consider such very serious matters.
Further, the Bill will provide the opportunity for mediation. With its less hostile and adversarial approach, mediation is conducive to getting the couple to see whether there is anything savable about their marriage. There are also one or two further amendments that have been tabled, with which we shall deal later, which suggest that we could make free marriage counselling available so that, if there is any possibility of saving a marriage, every opportunity will be provided to the couple to do so. We firmly support the objectives set out in the amendment and very much hope that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will be able to accept it.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I support the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Stallard. Its objectives, as my noble friend said, are ones that we can all understand and would wish to see. However, I disagree with my noble friend on the Front Bench that the Bill is conducive to the institution, and the continuation of the institution, of marriage. Indeed, I believe that it is anything but that.
The first question that we must ask about the Bill is: where has the demand for it come from? Has there been great public demand? Have we read articles in the press demanding easier divorce? Have we heard, even from the Church, that the existing divorce law needs amending? I must say that I have not heard much of that demand. Yet we have this Bill, and one wonders why.
I have to repeat that I believe the Bill is not about saving marriages. I believe that it will send the wrong message to the nation, to people and to married couples; namely, that under the legislation it will be much easier to get divorced. Why do I say that? Well, first, we have the provisions for notice to be given that a marriage is to end by one of the parties, not both of the parties. People will then be told that once such a notice is given, "Although we would like you to attend a mediation session, after one year the divorce will be operative." If that does not tell people that divorce will be much easier and that marriage does not count for much, then I do not know what does.
Further, the removal of fault will send a different sort of message to that sent previously. It will mean that all the faults that we have understood which might cause divorce and create difficulty in marriage are no longer faults. We will be telling people that adultery is no longer a fault; in other words, to cheat on your marriage—for that is what it means—is no longer a fault. Is that really the message that we want to send out to the nation from this House and from Parliament? Frankly, I do not believe that it is.

287
I am surprised that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, with his background, has come forward with this sort of legislation. We all know that the noble and learned Lord is a good man; indeed, a very good man.
Noble Lords: Hear! hear!
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: Unfortunately, I feel that the noble and learned Lord is a good man who has fallen among an assorted bunch of anarchists and liberals.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: Those people appear to have convinced the noble and learned Lord that the proposals in the Bill are conducive to strengthening marriage and the family. As I said, I do not believe that that is true.
The Government have been saying over a long period of time that they support the family and marriage, yet all their actions belie that claim. For example, the taxation system—on the pretext of achieving equalisation between the sexes—has progressively worked against marriage. Everyone in the House knows that that is true. The freezing until the last Budget of the married man's allowance and reducing its value from 25 per cent. to 15 per cent., the refusal to allow the transfer of the personal tax allowances between spouses and from one working spouse to a non-working spouse—thus failing to assist those wives who wish to do so to remain at home and look after their children—has actually been destructive of the family.
My noble friend said that that argument is nonsense. Of course, it is not nonsense. A burden has been put on the family that almost forces both spouses to go out to work. It is a system designed to encourage women to go to work rather than remain at home and look after their own children. Indeed, as we all know, the social security system itself favours the single parent in many ways, even to the extent that it is financially more favourable for fathers and mothers to live apart. No one can deny that that is happening under the present system. The impression has been given to women that they do not need a stable relationship with the father of their children as the state will provide. That has all been done under this particular Government who say that they want to retain marriage as a strong institution. Of course the impression has been given to fathers that they need not worry too much because the state will pick up the tabs.
The social consequences of the single parent family—poverty, crime, deprivation, lack of education and unemployment—are all evils which affect the children of single parent families along with the fiscal and social policies of the Government which have all exacerbated the problems. Now we come to the position of easier divorce. In spite of all that has happened up to now we send out the message that divorce will be made easier.
The Bill does away with fault, as I have already mentioned. I hope that the right reverend Prelates will listen to this. If one does away with fault, one actually encourages the faults one is doing away with. I am not
288
at all sure that that is the sort of thing that the Church of England in particular should be supporting at the present time. Indeed, I am surprised that the Church supports this Bill. It is a long time since I have been to a wedding service in a church but I rather think that that service will have to be rewritten. It will no longer be enough to say to the couple who are marrying that they must love and cherish one another in sickness and in health until "death do us part". That certainly does not apply under this Bill. The priest in charge will have to say, "You will cherish one another until one or other of you makes an application for a divorce under Section 1 of the Family Law Act 1996".
I also believe we shall have to rewrite the 10 commandments. I believe that one of the 10 commandments states,
"Thou shalt not commit adultery".
However, under this Bill adultery will no longer apply. Yet the right reverend Prelates and the Church of England are supporting a Bill which is doing away with one of the 10 commandments. I find that most amazing. I sincerely hope that as this Bill proceeds through its Committee and other stages they will re-examine their attitude towards some of the amendments.
I am sure that my noble friend will support this amendment. I believe this amendment will be accepted and I am glad about that because it will establish some principles which we need to establish. However, unlike my noble friend on the Front Bench, I shall certainly support amendments which give a much longer time for reflection and reconciliation. Mediation simply is not good enough. That merely tells people how they can get divorced with as little trouble as possible. That is what mediation in this Bill means. I want more time—
Lord Elton: Will the noble Lord give way?
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I was just finishing but I hope that the noble Lord will continue.
Lord Elton: If the noble Lord is finishing his remarks, I would be the last person to delay him.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: As we are in Committee I have no doubt that the noble Lord will make his own points in his own way and if I wish I can then interrupt him. We are always of course pleased to hear what he has to say. As I said, I shall certainly support some of the subsequent amendments which I believe will improve this bad Bill.
Lord Ashbourne: The purpose of this amendment is to buttress the institution of marriage. The preface to the White Paper Looking to the Future—Mediation and the ground for divorce issued in 1995 in connection with this Bill suggests that buttressing marriage is one of the central planks of government policy. This Bill, as drafted, will in no way achieve that aim. This amendment sets out in a helpful and positive way objectives for Part I of the Bill including supporting marriage and preventing marital breakdown. As the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, said in his introduction, both

289
the Children Act 1989 and the Education Act 1993 also include general objectives. I commend this amendment to the Committee.
The Earl of Onslow: I was reading the Book of Common Prayer. That book asks what is the object of marriage. It states,
"First, It was ordained for the procreation of children, to be brought up in the fear and nurture of the Lord …Secondly, It was ordained for a remedy against sin, and to avoid fornication; that such persons as have not the gift of continency might marry, and keep themselves undefiled …Thirdly, It was ordained for the mutual society, help, and comfort, that the one ought to have of the other, both in prosperity and adversity".
I have read that passage out for the right reverend Prelates because none of them now knows the Book of Common Prayer as they use the modern stuff, but he that as it may.
It seems to me that the Book of Common Prayer sets out exactly what marriage is for. It is time that someone supported my noble and learned friend on the Front Bench. As I understand it, this Bill will take the fault out of divorce but make divorce harder.
Both my parents were divorced and I know that they had to go through a charade. I know that their divorce was relatively bitter. I know many friends for whom the present system does nothing other than make an unpleasant breakdown of marriage infinitely worse. We are not trying to condone divorce in this Bill and we are not trying to undermine marriage. What my noble friend is trying to do is to make sure that when divorce occurs—which she has made more difficult—it will be less painful. That seems to me an ultimately civilised way for people to behave. For the noble Lord who has just spoken to say that the Bill abolishes the crime of adultery—I nearly said something quite rude—bears no relationship to reality whatever. We must have a civilised divorce procedure which makes the maximum appeal to reconciliation and mending. However, the noble Lord opposite was correct when he talked about the lunacy of the tax and benefits situation, but that is another story. I shall support my noble friend.
Lord Rawlinson of Ewell: It is because the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, ranged so broadly over the Bill when speaking to this amendment that I shall attitudinise now. I think that was the expression he used. I do that because of the general review that seems to be taking place about the Bill as it is at present. I believe it was Lord Palmerston who said that when a government do not have much of a programme they go in for a little law reform. We must acknowledge the courage of the present Administration to have decided to tackle such a controversial subject. Obviously they are not in the least concerned by exaggerated media reports about divisions among their supporters. They are brave to tackle this matter at this particular time in what may be the final Session of this Parliament. My noble and learned friend has shown great courage and, with great respect, I pay tribute to him for that. However, he must appreciate how controversial this matter is. It is a controversial matter to those of us who would normally support him in other things.
290
It is said that this Bill originated with the Law Commission which produced a document entitled, Family Law The Ground for Divorce.To me, that is not a recommendation. Law Commissioners are technocrats. They have no role in making or recommending decisions on ethical and moral judgments. They are an unrepresentative quango and exist to make technical improvements in branches of the law and to put into law what Parliament has decided in principle. That they are unqualified can be demonstrated by the fact that one of them, now a member of the High Court Bench, made that extraordinary statement about marriage.
It is not for people such as Law Commissioners to decide how marriage should be ended. The law of marriage affects status as well as contract. It affects position as well as rights. It is ignorant of some commentators to regard it as a matter which applies purely between individuals. A noble Lord opposite spoke about hardship in particular cases. One has to look beyond that when dealing with the law of marriage. It affects the principles which govern not only relationships between individuals but also the whole basis of society and thus the interests of the state.
There is an ancient aphorism which everyone in this House will know: hard cases make bad law. That is where the elimination of fault becomes so important. The ending of marriage alters status. The tearing up of a contract freely entered into at the suit of one party is only acceptable if that person has suffered due to the fault of another. Above all, the law has to ensure that any party who has not flagrantly broken a contract receives justice.
I only make these comments now because of the wide range which was introduced into the debate on this amendment by the noble Lord on the Front Bench opposite who, with a certain degree of hauteur, seemed to regard those of us who do not agree with him as attitudinising. Every attempt to change the law in this field has been marked by total error in prognostication. Everyone has got it wrong, the Divorce Act 1969 with its quickie divorces worst of all. However, many of us believe that the flagrant fault principle, although at times it involves an element of charade and of deceit, has the merit of ensuring in principle that the offender cannot get what he or she desires against the wishes of the other party to the contract. Nor do I understand how one party can state that a marriage has irretrievably broken down unless that party can establish a flagrant breach by the other.
It is therefore with some regret that I believe that this piece of legislation in its present form does not do what my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack hopes, intends and believes that it will do. It is governed by no principle. One must have that principle of fault. That is what distresses me about the legislation as presently drafted. Therefore I believe that it is baleful in its effect.
Accordingly, I hope that the principles set out in the amendment will be introduced into the Bill. They set forth clearly and straightforwardly what the Bill is

291
intended to achieve. Then it is up to us with the amendments which follow to change the Bill to make it achieve what the amendment hopes it will achieve.
The Lord Bishop of St. Edmundsbury and Ipswich: This Bench has suffered some attack, in a lighthearted way, in the course of the debate. Perhaps I may say that the Book of Common Prayer is well known to us all. Indeed, I was married by it 40 years ago, as was my wife, to whom I am still married. It expresses the theology of Christian marriage extremely well. I should add that the alternative service, which is in far greater demand now although both are available, copes with the second reason for matrimony better, speaking of it not simply as a remedy for sin but speaking of sexual relationships as a means of expressing love. However, that point is on one side.
Nobody in the Church would wish to see marriage or family life in any sense undermined. It is one of our steady criticisms that the amount of support which is given to marriage and the amount of work that goes into preparation for marriage is far less on the side of the state than it is on the side of the Church. Over the years we have put immense resources into preparation for marriage and supporting marriages when they are entered into.
I do not believe that the Bill is about that. It is not a Bill which attacks marriage. It tries to make sense of situations in which marriage breakdown has taken place. I do not think that anyone believes, and certainly no one on this Bench believes, that the present law is adequate to make sense of that.
Perhaps I may concentrate for a moment on the issue of no fault. Of course there is fault in the breakdown of marriage, but is the fault only on the part of one partner? That appears to be what is indicated in the present law. Clearly, none of us believes that that is true. Marriages always break down by the fault of both. The fault may be, and often is, adultery. It may be adultery on both parts or on the part of one partner, but that adultery may itself have been caused by earlier failure to listen or to communicate.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I thank the right reverend Prelate for giving way. I believe that it is time to remind the Committee that this is not Second Reading. We are speaking to Amendment No. I on the Marshalled List. I understood that the debate went far wider than is usually the case at Committee stage in view of what the noble Lord said from the Front Bench opposite, and therefore I sat quietly while we had a Second Reading speech on the grounds that it was in response to what was said. However, now we have another Second Reading speech.
The purpose of our presence in the Chamber today is to consider the amendments on the Marshalled List. We are not discussing the no fault issue at this time. There will be plenty of opportunity to do so later when the appropriate amendments are dealt with. I thought that
292
perhaps the right reverend Prelate was not familiar with our procedures and that it might be helpful to mention that.
The Lord Bishop of St. Edmundsbury and Ipswich: I thank the noble Baroness for that intervention. I understand the intention behind it. I simply sought to answer the point raised on the Benches opposite on the matter of no fault. Perhaps I may say simply that fault clearly exists on both sides, but to define one particular fault as the reason for the breakdown of a marriage without giving an opportunity for mediation to take place, as under the present law, is not in my view a way of supporting marriage.
The Earl of Perth: I want to apologise for not being present at the moving of the amendment. Having said that, I recall that at Second Reading when the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor introduced the Bill, he said, first, that he believed that marriage was divinely appointed; and secondly, that the Government would do nothing to undermine it. I support him wholly on the first of his beliefs. How could I do otherwise when I have had the great good fortune of having been married for more than 60 years—and long may it continue!
However, on the second point that the Government want to do nothing which will undermine marriage, it is my fear—and many of those who have spoken have expressed the same fear—that that is exactly what will happen. I am deeply grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Young, for having drawn attention at Second Reading to the fact that the 1969 Act was introduced with the intention of making divorce more difficult, except in certain circumstances where it would he less painful. What has been the outcome? We well know that numbers have increased from 50,000 at that time to 160,000 at present. In other words, while the intention was good, the result was disastrous.
It is my fear and belief that unless we consider all the amendments with this new clause guiding us, the same will happen again. Therefore, I wholly agree with the proposed new clause. It gives us the opportunity to stress reconciliation rather than mediation.
I recognise how difficult it is not to make a Second Reading speech; I seek to avoid that. I support the objectives of the amendment and I believe that they are valuable because they will enable us to refer to them again and again in the changes we seek. That is not to make divorce easier, but somehow to make it less painful. I fear that as the Bill stands it does not achieve these things.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I hope noble Lords will excuse my addressing them in an eye shade. I believe that I am not covered in the technical sense as understood by parliamentary practice.
I did not intend to intervene on this debate. I do so to recall the real purpose and value of this kind of amendment; and in response to the two main points made by the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg. In a perfect legislative world every provision of a statute would be immediately plain and could not be disputed. It would be in no way obscure or ambiguous. But we do not live in a perfect legislative world. In fact, although I

293
dislike it, it is an extremely well drafted Bill. However, there are bound to be cases where the meaning might be challenged from two opposing points of view. When that occurs, it is valuable for the courts to have an indication of the leaning that Parliament intends them to have in deciding between the two disputed assertions as to meaning. That can either be done in the Long Title—I personally prefer that—or, as the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, proposes, by a clause of this kind, which has abundant precedent. So much for the value and purpose of the amendment.
The noble Lord, Lord Irvine, made two points. First, he manifested his clear dislike of the present law. That was taken up by the right reverend Prelate. Those of us who dislike the present Bill have no liking for the present law. Most of those who oppose the Bill opposed the 1969 Act. Many of those who now support this Bill were supporters of the 1969 Act. It is that which is objected to, and rightly so. Moreover, the quickie divorce on which the noble Lord, Lord Irvine, spent some time, and on which he spoke cogently, was purely and solely the invention of the government department which is now issuing a Green Paper denouncing it and denouncing the 1969 Act. The quickie divorce does not depend for its abolition on the passing of this Bill. The measure can be got rid of in exactly the way that it was brought into existence; namely, by regulation and direction of the Lord Chancellor's Department.
Secondly, the noble Lord put down a strong marker, apparently in view of reports in this morning's press, about the lengthening of the period of one year to possibly 18 months. He was thereby anticipating an important debate which is still to come and on which there is much to be said. At this stage I say only this. If the present period of a year is what is required for mediation, then if we are to have reconciliation procedures—as most of us want, and as the noble Lord, Lord Irvine, wants—then presumably some extra time is needed to aaccommodate those reconciliation procedures. That being so, in view of those two matters and of the proper purpose of the amendment, I venture to support it.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Meston: I restate the support from these Benches for the Bill. I agree completely with the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, and the noble Earl, Lord Onslow. It is by reference to the amendment helpful to have a statement of objectives at the beginning of any legislation, and this Bill is no exception. I comment only that the amendment does not address the objectives of Part III of the Bill. That is the important part dealing with the rationalisation of the law relating to domestic violence.
As a practitioner in the field, I can only endorse the clear description of the existing procedures for divorce given by the noble Lord, Lord Irvine. Present divorce procedure is a paperwork exercise. It can be a very quick exercise. and, frankly, sometimes an undignified exercise. The only point at which I question what he said is that I am not entirely sure that nowadays any attendance at the court for consideration of the
294
arrangements for the children is necessary. My observation is that under the existing regime the vast majority of divorcing couples, for all the relative ease of the formal process, find divorce and its consequences painful; and the vast majority of them do not undertake divorce lightly—more so if there are children to be considered. My observation is that where there are children they try harder.
Quick divorce does not seem to be possible under this Bill—let there be no mistake about it. I suggest that it is arguable, and indeed doubtful, whether an easier divorce process, if there is to be one, would encourage cohabitation outside marriage. Leaving that question aside, what is certain, I suggest, is that making divorce more difficult will not encourage marriage.
I regard the Bill as supportive of marriage, as the Law Commission intended. I question the description of the Law Commission as mere technocrats, Its report in this area was thoughtful, thorough, and began in this way:
"There is widespread concern about the current prevalence of divorce in this country and the consequences that this can have both for the couple concerned and for their children. There is also concern that the present divorce process may be making these worse".
The Law Commission went on to say:
"The present law is confusing and unjust. It now fulfils neither of its original objectives. These were, first, the support of marriages which have a chance of survival, and secondly, the decent burial with the minimum of embarrassment, humiliation and bitterness of those that are indubitably dead".
I regard the Bill as fulfilling the objectives set by the Law Commission and we continue to support it.
Lord Elton: The noble Lord, Lord Meston, has demonstrated that the exclusion of Part III of the Bill from the list of the objectives in the amendment renders it defective. I rise to ask the Committee from the heart to stop behaving as though the law alone will determine the divorce rate. If Members of the Committee think that by passing legislation of any kind they will improve matters significantly, they delude themselves. There is far more to be done in our society to rescue it from what is happening than mere legislation. So can we not make that a principal argument?
The Lord Chancellor: I wish to take the opportunity not to make a Second Reading speech—which I shall try to avoid—but to answer two questions put to me about matters that were in the public domain this morning.
My position as regards the Bill is that I have brought it forward because I regarded it as important to do so in the discharge of the responsibilities of the office which I presently hold. The reason I brought it forward is that it has been brought to my attention by many of those who work in the field that the present law of divorce has a very detrimental effect on the children affected by it. I regard it as vitally important in the discharge of my responsibilities that I should put before Parliament the best law that I can suggest as a Bill, in order that those matters may be addressed. The ultimate responsibility for what goes on the statute book will, of course, be that of Parliament as a whole.

295
My second point is this. My attitude to the discussions in Parliament is that the Government's policy was reached after careful consideration, after the Law Commission report. I would not wish to describe the law commissioners as technocrats. I regard those who are selected for that important office as having wide experience which is valuable to Parliament. It has been the subject of many compliments by distinguished Members of your Lordships' House over the years since I have been here. The Law Commission report came after consultations and after the Law Commission put out a working paper in 1988. The Law Commission report was in 1990.
As my noble and learned friend Lord Rawlinson said, I appreciated fully that this is a controversial matter. Frankly, it was controversial for myself. I found it extremely difficult to know what to do. The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, kindly referred to my background and paid other compliments which are too generous. I found it extremely difficult to know what to do, but I thought the right action was to issue a Green Paper and consult generally on the basis of what the Law Commission had proposed, with a good deal of flexibility in the Green Paper about, for example, the period for reflection. It was not immediately self-evident to me what the period should be and the Law Commission itself pointed out that different people had different views on it. So the Green Paper reflected that kind of consideration.
We consulted widely and all noble Lords had an opportunity to respond. Members of the Committee individually will know to what extent they responded. In the light of the consultation, the Government, reviewing all the responses that had come in, concluded the policy which is in the White Paper. That policy attempts to achieve the general objectives which are set out in the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Stallard.
So far as I am concerned, the position is that the Government's policy as regards the period remains at one year. I have indicated that I shall listen carefully to all that is said in Parliament, not only on this subject but on every other aspect of the matter which I regard as of essential importance to the social fabric of our society.
The other point I wish to make is in a way subsidiary. I should like to attain the greatest possible consensus on these matters consistent with the principles that I have enunciated. For that reason I will give the closest attention to everything that comes from Members of the Committee.
As regards the proposals in the amendment, in my view the statements, so far as they go, are unexceptionable. The noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, suggested to me earlier that I might agree with myself—as if that was a good thing to do. On this matter, the objectives were set out in the Government's White Paper and therefore I agree with them wholeheartedly. It is possible to improve matters and in other respects I am content to disagree with
296
myself where I have seen that an earlier view of mine was not substantially correct and can be improved upon. That is the purpose of these debates at Committee stage.
I do not wish to go into all the matters raised by Members of the Committee. So far as they reflect on the earlier parts of the Bill, I entirely agree with the objectives. By reference to them, I shall be happy to test all the subsequent amendments.
As the noble Lord, Lord Meston, pointed out in his observations, the amendment does not include a reference to Part III of the Bill. For obvious reasons, the White Paper did not deal with that and therefore change is required. I noticed that the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, departing from the earlier form of his amendment, dropped the final objective which was in the White Paper. It concerned minimising costs to parties and to the taxpayer. I regard that also as an important objective because unnecessary costs spent on the divorce will mean resources being unavailable for the support of the family unit affected or of subsequent relationships. Those are important additions which might be made.
The noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, mentioned that there is sometimes difficulty about the incorporation of such a clause because of its effect. I have taken preliminary advice about it but the Committee would wish it to be considered more fully in relation to the final formulation. Apart from anything else, Part III has to be taken into account.
So far as they go, the general objectives as stated are entirely correct in my view and I endorse them. I have no difficulty whatever in incorporating them in the Bill, assuming that I am advised that it is wise to do so in the full context of the Bill. Whether or not that is advisable, I am greatly obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, and others who put their names to the amendment for putting forward the objectives. I am content that all the later amendments to the Bill should be judged by those objectives.
It would be quite wrong for me to go into the detail of points raised in what have been described as "Second Reading speeches". We shall come to all that in due course. I simply indicate my view about matters at the moment. If the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, is prepared to withdraw the amendment, I have no doubt that we can return to whether or not it should be altered or formally incorporated into the Bill at a later stage.
Lord Stallard: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his response. I fully appreciate that he cannot be expected to deal with everything on the hoof and, if he has second thoughts on anything, I look forward to his further agreement on Report.
He referred to paragraph (e) of the original amendment which I believed would be covered by other amendments and dealt with in far more detail than we could apply to it now. I therefore left that matter for future amendment. I hope that we shall then be able to discuss it constructively. In the meantime, I thank the noble and learned Lord very much for his reply. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6 p.m.
Clause 1 [Divorce and separation]:
Lord Simon of Glaisdale Lord Simon of Glaisdale moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, leave out lines 11 and 12.
The noble and learned Lord said: Before moving this amendment perhaps I may make two observations. First, how convenient it was that a preliminary Marshalled List was prepared for us yesterday by the Public Bill Office. Secondly, I should like to indicate the main classes of amendment that I have presumed to table. The first are purely probing, as indeed all are in a sense, in that I wanted to raise some novel points and hear the views of the Committee in relation to them. On none do I intend to ask the Committee to divide. Some are more strictly probing, and seek to discover exactly what is in the mind of my noble and learned friend.
The second group of amendments is designed to mitigate the injustice and hardship inherent in a measure that provides for unilateral repudiation of the other spouse, particularly hardship and injustice in relation to married women.
The third group is particularly directed to the words "have consideration of the welfare of children" considered at the stage of divorce, not postponed until after the parties have declared that their marriage is irrevocably over.
The fourth class is designed to take some positive action to affirm a marriage, partly by the contract, but partly by improving our regime of matrimonial property, so that it reflects more truly the sharing that is promised at the marriage and is inherent to the marriage, whereas at present our law of property goes against that.
This amendment is purely probing. It seeks to delete the reference to separation orders. I was not quite clear, although no doubt I should have been, exactly what is in the mind of the Government. I can think of two circumstances where a separation order is very much needed. The first is within a year of the marriage. It is supported in parliamentary divorce, in the ecclesiastical courts, and in lay courts since 1857, that occasionally there is treatment so evil from the outset of the marriage that the parties cannot be expected to live together. Perhaps the most striking is the communication of a venereal disease, of which there are several reports. That seems to me to be a case where the parties are precluded, as I read the Bill, from seeking a divorce order. I ask my noble arid learned friend whether he can assure us that there would be no obstacle to seeking, and indeed securing, a separation order in those circumstances.
The second instance that comes to mind is where a number of people still have a conscientious objection to divorce. They stand by the promises they made at marriage, particularly those made at the altar. Those people are willing to be separated if the conduct of the other spouse renders the continued cohabitation virtually impossible. They are willing to be separated but not finally to have the marriage dissolved because it is subsisting in their eyes and, so long as it does subsist,
298
there is always the chance of reconciliation, contrition, and resumption of cohabitation. There may be other circumstances. If so, I should be grateful if my noble and learned friend could help us, particularly on the two circumstances to which I referred.
This amendment is grouped with Amendment No. 15 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Meston. I do not know whether he wishes to move it separately. It is also grouped with my Amendment No. 16. I think it would be for the convenience of the Committee if I moved that separately. In the meantime, I beg to move Amendment No. 2.
Lord Meston: I am content to speak to my Amendment No. 15, grouped with this amendment. I find myself a little bemused by the amendment in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. But the matter does not end there, because the noble and learned Lord raises an interesting point about the types of order proposed under this Bill.
As the law stands, there is a clear and well understood distinction between a decree of divorce and a decree of judicial separation. As it is, for judicial separation the irretrievable breakdown of a marriage does not have to be alleged or established. It is a remedy quite often sought by those whose marriage has broken down, whether irretrievably or not, but who prefer not to be divorced for religious or other reasons. A judicial separation provides a status and consequences which are well established in law, including consequences for inheritance after death and on the obligation to cohabit.
At first sight, Clause I of the Bill reproduces the existing law with simple changes of title for the type of order. But it is regrettable that there is not a definition of the status created by the two new orders as there was in Clause 1 of the Bill as annexed to the Law Commission report. In that report the Bill started with Clause 1, which stated that the court might make an order known as an order of divorce dissolving the marriage, or an order known as a separation order removing, for so long as it is in force, from the parties to the marriage any obligation to cohabit, and having the effect relating to inheritance which the Bill went on to describe. For some reason that is not reproduced in this Bill. When in due course we come to Amendment No. 5, I shall seek to restore the different bases for the two types of order.
Amendment No. 15 seeks to amend Clause 2(3) of the Bill as it is presently drafted. Under Clause 2(3):
"If the court is considering an application for a divorce order and an application for a separation order in respect of the same marriage it shall proceed as if it were considering only the application for a divorce order"
unless certain conditions apply. In other words, the court's hands are tied by mandatory obligation provided in the Bill as drafted. Amendment No.15 seeks to question that provision and would give the court more discretion to consider which application is the more appropriate to grant in all the circumstances of the case.
I question the thinking behind Clause 2(3). Indeed, I question it in the context of the philosophy underlying the Bill. It seems wrong in principle to remove from the court any discretion to consider whether a separation

299
order is more appropriate than a divorce order. Surely the court should consider both, on their merits and on the basis of any evidence or argument which is then put before the court. It is hard to see how Clause 2(3) in its present form assists the Government's objectives.
With respect, I invite the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to indicate to the Committee the thinking behind Clause 2(3).
Lord Irvine of Lairg: I normally find the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, both learned and clear. Therefore I acknowledge that it is my own fault that I did not clearly understand from him why, in his proposed amendment, Amendment No. 2, the availability of a judicial separation order should be removed from the battery of powers that are available to the court.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: It was the only way that I could think of in order to probe what lay behind the matter. There probably may be some other ways, but I could not think of them.
The Lord Chancellor: That was my understanding of what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, wanted: just that I should explain. I do not think he was suggesting that this was a substantive proposal. The Law Commission considered whether or not a judicial separation order should be continued at all in the new situation that was envisaged. After considering the matter, it came to the conclusion that it was right for it to be retained. In the consultation that I undertook, nobody suggested any other course. So that is as it is in the Bill.
The conditions for grant would be the same as for an order of divorce, except that that kind of order, as my noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale indicated, can be obtained in the first year of marriage. There is no bar in that respect. Drastic circumstances such as he envisaged could occur there. The purpose of the provision is to leave that possibility open.
Secondly, apart from that altogether and, as my noble and learned friend said, for religious or conscientious objections some people would not. wish to have a divorce. I wish to keep open every possibility of accommodating every form of religious belief that exists in relation to this matter. Therefore, I think it is right that the judicial separation order should be allowed to continue. So religious or conscientious objections to divorce comprise another reason.
The third possibility is that, notwithstanding that the relationship had broken down irretrievably, and was seen as such at the time, living apart in the conditions that had been arranged might demonstrate to the parties that they were better off than they were before. Having a separation order would preclude their entering into any other marriage relationship—they might have other relationships but not marriage. Therefore, it was thought possible that people in that situation might well be able to be reconciled after a while. That is another reason.
There is also a possibility in relation to pension rights. Obviously, some of these matters are subject to consideration. However, that was another reason why
300
some people did not want to divorce. They wanted to keep open the possibility of access to a pension under the arrangements for marriage.
In answer to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Meston, the view on which this provision proceeds is that the parties should be able to choose which remedy they wanted, the conditions being the same for obtaining the order, apart from the first year bar. It would be up to the parties to decide what they wanted to do. That is the thinking behind the way in which that matter was put.
I should have mentioned before that I was particularly grateful to my noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale, who in these matters is an eminent critic, when he said that this Bill, although he dislikes it in policy, is well drafted. I was very anxious that it should be so and that it would be as clear as possible to all those who might be affected by it. That may be quite a large number of citizens, who, as the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, said, would not all be lawyers, fortunately.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Meston: Before the noble and learned Lord sits down, perhaps I may refer to his comment about the drafting being clear. I wonder whether it would be clearer if the first clause in the Law Commission's proposed Bill which spelt out the status confirmed by the two types of order was somehow restored in an early part of this Bill. I wonder why it was left out.
The Lord Chancellor: I understand that for the purposes of simplicity it was easier simply to describe the separation order as an order providing for the separation of the parties to a marriage without a separate clause to that effect. Of course, the consequences of such an order remain.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I am most grateful to my noble and learned friend for his explanation. As for the Bill being well drafted—I think that it is an exceptionally well drafted Bill—there is a lesson to be drawn. This Bill has been matured over a period of four or five years. It shows the advantage of the draftsman not being hurried, as most of them are. That is one of the causes for so much of our legislation being ill drafted.
My noble and learned friend confirmed that I was right in both my surmises as to why the separation order subsists. I say only—it was emphasised by the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Meston—that there is a bias throughout the Bill, particularly in Clause 2(3), in favour of divorce as against separation. It is to adopt a phrase that was used to the Royal Commission on Marriage and Divorce: it is a divorce minded Bill.
My noble and learned friend said, and it is a comfort to know, that the circumstance in which the separation order may be valuable is where there is a conscientious objection to divorce and particularly one that is founded ultimately on a hope of reconciliation. That being so, it is a great pity—to put it mildly—that, notwithstanding the conscientious objection of one spouse, nevertheless the separation order can be converted into a divorce order at the instance of the other spouse.

301
As Members of the Committee know well, the difference between separation and divorce is simply this. A separation order gives a party leave in law to live separate and apart. A divorce order does something more; it couples that with a licence to remarry. Once there is remarriage, there is virtually no hope of a reconciliation. Therefore, the party who conscientiously preferred a separation order in the hope of reconciliation nevertheless finds it dashed from their lips because the law says that there can be an immediate conversion.
Having explored the matter, and again thanking my noble and learned friend, the noble Lord, Lord Meston, and the noble Lord, Lord Irvine—in spite of his slight animadversion on my obscurities—I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause I agreed to.
Clause 2 [Circumstances in which orders are made]:
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Murton of Lindisfarne): I should point out to the Committee that if Amendment No. 3 is agreed to, I shall not be able to call Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 owing to pre-emption.
Baroness Young Baroness Young moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 2, leave out line I.
The noble Baroness said: As Amendment No. 3 is the first of a number of amendments I have tabled, I begin by saying to my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor that I am heartened by what he said at Second Reading and repeated today in reply to the first amendment; that is, that he wishes to look carefully at the amendments and consider them. I can assure him that it is not my intention to divide the Chamber at Committee stage on any of the amendments tabled in my name.
I am conscious—before someone else picks up the point—that a number of my amendments cover the same point. That is deliberate. A number of serious issues arise and the idea is that we provide a variety of ways from which an answer may he found. I mean them to stand as they are without necessarily saying that one is preferable to another.
Perhaps I may take up something said by the noble Lord, Lord Irvine, in his charming Second Reading speech on the first amendment. I am not sure that I was being referred to—it is quite a compliment to be picked out in that way—but in case I was, I took down his exact remarks in regard to people who stand on "spurious, moral high ground". I do not see myself in those terms. I am not a clever lawyer like him and I cannot make that sort of speech. However, I am perfectly entitled to my point of view about the Bill and entitled to argue my case, which I am prepared to do. Perhaps I may say to him right at the start of these proceedings that we shall all get on a lot better if we respect one another's point of view rather than make remarks that are singularly unhelpful.
I shall not continue in this vein. I have had my say and I now turn to the amendment before us. I am slightly surprised that it was not grouped because, in a sense, it
302
is a paving amendment. Its purpose is perfectly clear; it permits divorce only on the grounds of fault or behaviour that is destructive to the continuance of the marriage. In a way, the amendment is required for amendments that follow on from it.
As I indicated, I do not wish to press the amendment. Amendment No. 4 is the major amendment dealing with the whole issue of fault. I prefer to raise the issue on that amendment rather than on Amendment No. 3 which, though free-standing, should have been grouped.
I am always pleased to hear the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. I am glad that he attaches his name to the amendment. In case he or anyone else wishes to say something a,. this stage, I beg to move.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I am obliged to the noble Baroness. I would not wish her to refrain from withdrawing the amendment at the end of the debate because, as I indicated, all my amendments are exploratory. However, it is extremely valuable to debate at the outset the concept of irretrievable breakdown; it is at the heart of the measure.
It is because of that concept that one finds an inbuilt injustice. The only way of testing irretrievable breakdown is by finding facts to support it. That was where the committee of the Bishop of Exeter, in Putting Asunder, made its fundamental error. It thought that irretrievable breakdown was a triable issue and recommended that it should be the only basis for divorce. Fault should not be considered at all but every marriage should be tried separately to see whether it had in truth broken down. It was rapidly pointed out not only that irretrievable breakdown is an unjusticiable issue but that it is practically impossible to investigate every marriage to see whether it has in tact irretrievably broken down. That was pointed out both by the Law Commission and by the Lord Chancellor's department.
In the result, the Bishop of Exeter agreed to the composite measure of 1969, so justly denounced in the White Paper, in chapter 2, and by the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, in what I am afraid we will continue to call his Second Reading speech today. That was a perfectly just denunciation. Nevertheless, we had the odd circumstance that the Bishop of Exeter was actually a teller in your Lordships' Chamber in favour of the 1969 Bill at Second Reading notwithstanding that it contradicted fundamentally what his committee recommended. Another right reverend Prelate, who is happily still with us, was on the other side and voted against the Bill. Is it any wonder that the Church of England appears now to be speaking in disparate voices on this measure which takes us further down the same road.
A second point I should like to make is that irretrievable breakdown, as a ground for divorce, is a recent intellectual fashion; really an intellectual fad. One gets these sudden gusts of intellectual opinion sweeping through society. The most notable in my time was undoubtedly the movement for pacifism at the end of the 1920s and at the beginning of the 1930s, starting

303
with the anti-war novels and plays and ending up with the politically momentous Peace Pledge Union. The intelligentsia who had put forward that view, speaking of passive resistance as the proper method of standing up against evil, rapidly changed their opinion in the face of fascism, and instead of passive resistance and non-violence one had the idea of co-operation against fascism. But that is a good example of how a temporary fashion runs through society and carries all before it.
Perhaps even closer to this Bill and the 1969 Act was the movement of bimetallism at the end of the last century. It was a tremendous fashion, so much so that an American presidential election was carried on it, with William Brown momentously referring to mankind being crucified on a cross of gold. It all sounds so remote and so ridiculous; but at that time it carried all before it. No one thinks of it now.
Irretrievable breakdown is very much the same. Nothing had been heard of it by the time the Royal Commission sat in the early 1950s. The Royal Commission was appointed because the noble Baroness, Lady White, had introduced a Bill providing for divorce after seven years' separation. Nothing was heard of irretrievable breakdown as such in the evidence given to the Royal Commission by Archbishop Fisher, which seems now to be largely forgotten, although his objections to the seven years' separation for divorce would certainly apply much more strongly to the ground of irretrievable breakdown.
As I said, it is a recent fashion and one hopes that it will disappear with this Bill. And not only that—it is not a justiciable issue at all. The White Paper admits that. The 1969 Act set out what were called five facts. Each one was a conclusive proof of irretrievable breakdown and all five were exclusively proof. In other words, the irretrievable breakdown was, as is now accepted, the merest humbug. So, too, in this Bill. The irretrievable breakdown cannot be proved as such. It can only be shown—and in this Bill it is to be shown—by one party to the marriage saying that the marriage has irretrievably broken down. That amounts in fact to unilateral repudiation of the other spouse. The sooner we grasp that and face it, the more honest we shall be with this Bill.
The irretrievable breakdown proved by unilateral repudiation is bound to be liable to cause injustice and is likely to cause the most severe injustice to married women. I want to quote a passage from a book written by David Morris, who was the most experienced litigation solicitor in London at the time and was particularly strong on divorce. The foreword of the book was written by my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham. In the foreword my noble and learned friend picked out two passages especially. David Morris had written:
"It all sounds so wonderful"—
the improvement in the wife's legal position—
"until you face the position of the middle-aged woman with young children abandoned by her husband for a younger woman after ten or fifteen years of marriage. Then by a paradox many of those
304
improvements, to which in all fairness women were clearly entitled, seem to have contributed to a weakening of women's position in marriage as a whole".
In moving this amendment the noble Baroness has given us an opportunity to face that situation, a matter of elemental justice.
The other passage cited by my noble and learned friend is as follows:
"I agree that there are often faults on both sides, but I believe that in many cases if all the facts were known most people would say that far more of the fault was on one side than the other".
My noble and learned friend added:
"That, too, has been my experience".
Perhaps I may add that that, too, has been my own experience as a matrimonial judge.
The final thing I would say concerns the pretence of abandoning fault because it exacerbates the relationship. Nevertheless, fault creeps back at a later stage, as it is bound to. The divorce itself is demoralised, fault is not investigated, the ipse dixit of one spouse is sufficient to set it in motion. Once the motion starts, once the mediation sets in, the parties are enjoined—enjoined in the White Paper itself—to face their faults on how far they have been responsible. Indeed, the Bill itself and Section 25 of the 1973 Act expressly enjoin the court to have regard to the conduct of the parties. So although one demoralises divorce, one does not get rid of fault. One may expel it from the front door with a hay fork but one will find that it slips in through the back door and is in the parlour.
Lord Elton: I do not follow the noble and learned Lord on the question of irretrievable breakdown per se, but I hope that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor can say something about irretrievable breakdown as evidenced by a unilateral declaration—something which I find rather difficult. That may be to anticipate Amendment No. 18A in the name of my noble friend Lord Ashbourne, in which case my noble friend may wish to postpone it; but it seems an integral part of this debate. Irretrievable breakdown resting on the claim of one party and the silence of the other is fraught with dangers of injustice.
Lord Coleraine: I would like to associate myself with the scorn which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, has cast on the use of the words, "irretrievable breakdown" both in this Bill and in the 1969 legislation. I am probably making the same type of point as my noble friend Lord Elton. The 1969 Act says that the sole ground for divorce is irretrievable breakdown. It goes on to say that there are only five ways in which one can prove that. The 1969 Act was creating as best it could a system of divorce based on the grounds that—I am looking at the line which the amendment of my noble friend Lady Young seeks to omit from the Bill—
"the marriage has broken down irretrievably".
Clause 2(1) states,
"the court shall make the order applied for if (but only if)— the marriage has broken down irretrievably".
(a)
Of course, the question of irretrievable breakdown is not justiciable. If we look ahead to Clause 4(1) we see,

305
"A marriage is to be taken to have broken down irretrievably if (but only if)—"
and then there is a long list of matters which have to be satisfied. The line in the Bill which my noble friend seeks to omit could be made both more neutral in terms which might appeal to my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor and more explanatory of what is the actual situation, if that line read, "The marriage is taken to have broken down irretrievably". That would describe the full situation.
Baroness Elles: I support the comments made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. I find the removal of fault in this Bill extremely worrying. I am somewhat surprised that, as far as I can see, the Government's White Paper Looking to the future, makes no reference at all to any of the research done in those countries where no-fault divorce has been introduced.
Considerable research has been done in the United States since the introduction of no-fault divorce in California in 1970 and, I understand, in at least 38 states, now. Of course, as research shows, it is always very difficult to apply direct cause to some effect, but there is no doubt that, from the evidence which has been obtained, the idea of no-fault divorce has increased the number of divorces between 20 per cent. and 25 per cent. over the past 15 to 20 years. Therefore, I am surprised that, with the fairness and intellectual rigour of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, no reference has been made to that, as far as I can see, when presenting the case for no-fault divorce. That should certainly be looked at.
The other point which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, strongly emphasised was that of justice. Many of us will have friends of all conditions, backgrounds and homes, where one of the partners has deserted the home—and even our Bishops might agree that they were behaving badly—and where the other party might have been innocent. They would find great unfairness in the allocation of the matrimonial property and the financial arrangements. I very much hope that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor will be able to calm my concerns where there is some disagreement as to the allocation of the matrimonial property, which, after all, was a matter which was very largely resolved in this House very many years ago by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, in his so-called "palm tree" judgments, which brought some justice to women who had contributed to the home without possibly making any financial contribution. That should not be totally overridden by this Bill. With the unilateral demand for divorce, the power goes to the person who wants the divorce, who wants to marry again because he or she has gone off with someone else, and there is no protection for the apparently innocent party in those cases. I hope that my noble and learned friend will give us some support and alleviation as regards the concern on these matters.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: Perhaps I may reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Young, in whose name this amendment stands, that I thoroughly enjoyed her
306
contribution at Second Reading as much as I vigorously disagreed with it. I entirely accept that she is entitled to her view and I enjoyed her expression of it. Equally, I dare say, she will accept that I am entitled to my views about her views.
I well appreciate that this is a paving amendment designed to remove irretrievable breakdown as a ground for divorce. It is better to postpone our detailed discussion on that matter until the suggestion of fault provisions is directly before us. I should make it clear, however, that in my view irretrievable breakdown should be the ground for divorce. It is made so by Clause 2(1)(a).
As regards the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, the noble and learned Lord will no doubt wish to confirm whether he agrees with that interpretation. I understand Clause 2(1)(a) to require that the court be positively satisfied that the marriage has broken down irretrievably. But then Clause 4(1) operates, as it were, as a bar to that satisfaction. The court is not to be satisfied because the marriage is not to be taken as having broken down irretrievably unless these various precautions, as it were, have been fulfilled. That is as I understand it.
I submit that irretrievable breakdown should be the ground for divorce. So far from irretrievable breakdown not being justiciable, I submit that it is fault which is not sensibly justiciable in this area. Perhaps I may recall the wise—
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: Was not fault justiciable in this area from the time of the Norman Conquest until 1857 in the ecclesiastical courts and after that in the lay courts until 1969 and beyond?
Lord Irvine of Lairg: I am not bowled over by ancestor worship. I was seeking to call attention to the wise words at Second Reading of the right reverend Prelate, the Bishop of Birmingham, when he said,
"To say that irretrievable breakdown should be the sole ground for divorce is not to deny personal responsibility for the breakdown of a relationship".
I entirely agree. He continued,
"It is not to deny the place of human fault and sin in the process of matrimonial breakdown".
I entirely agree. He went on,
"It is to say that a human court of justice is too blunt an instrument for apportioning blame in so complex an area of human behaviour, especially if the processes one has invite one to say that it is all the fault of one side or the other. Anyway, what is the point of apportioning blame?"—[Official Report, 30/11/95; col. 753.]
That is to run ahead into the argument as to whether there should be fault-based divorce, but I entirely agree.
I was entirely in agreement with what the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St. Edmundsbury and Ipswich was saying in his brief speech to similar effect when it was subject to an intervention from the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, who is not in her place at present, inviting him to abbreviate it to which, sadly, he responded. The noble Baroness asserted that the right reverend Prelate was making a Second Reading speech, as it has been asserted that I made a Second Reading speech on Amendment No 1, a position

307
adopted by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, and taken up by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. I do not begin to accept that.
What was before us on Amendment No. I was a general objectives clause. The noble and learned Lord has recognised that there are special legislative problems associated with general objectives clauses although I believe him to have expressed a strong measure of sympathy, subject to supplementing it, for this one. The point is that when a general objectives clause is before your Lordships for consideration, the major question which has to be addressed is whether that general objectives clause chimes with the particular provisions of the Bill that follow the general objectives clause, if it is accepted. How you do justice to an argument that a Bill should embrace at its commencement a general objectives clause without addressing whether it is in accordance with all the particular provisions of the Bill escapes me, but no doubt at a later stage in this debate the noble and learned Lord and the noble Baroness will explain. Meanwhile, I leave the substance of this interesting argument until a debate on the fault or no fault amendments.
Lord Meston: Confining myself to this amendment, I cannot agree with the proposition that the irretrievable breakdown of a marriage is not a justiciable matter. I have known divorces which have been successfully defended and, indeed, undefended divorces which have been refused by a court on the basis of a decision by the judge that the breakdown of the marriage had not been shown to be irretrievable, because for example, there was a reasonable prospect of reconciliation. Therefore, I suggest that your Lordships should not be put off by the proposition that a court cannot decide that a marriage has broken down irretrievably.
The Lord Chancellor: I think that there is a great deal of merit in taking this amendment with the later amendments, as my noble friend Lady Young suggested. However, we have now been treated by my noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale to a somewhat more detailed defence of the amendment than was given by my noble friend herself. Therefore, I think that I owe it to my noble and learned friend and to other noble Lords who have spoken to say just a word or two about this matter.
The purpose of the clause is to base the ground of divorce on the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage. As the reference to the prayer book from my noble friend Lord Onslow made clear, the obligations of marriage do not stop with the obligation not to commit adultery—I believe that there is a good deal more to the marriage relationship than that—nor do those obligations stop at the obligation not to be guilty of unreasonable conduct. I believe that the obligations of marriage, as set out in the Book of Common Prayer and in the scriptures on which I believe that that book is soundly based, are much more far reaching and intimate. I believe, as I. have said before in another context but perhaps not to your Lordships, that a good marriage relationship is the most satisfying of all human relationships. It cannot be reduced to a list of contractual
308
conditions. It is much more than that. It is a relationship unique in itself, divinely given (in my view) and extremely valuable in our society.
When that relationship breaks down, something requires to happen. Following extensive consultation, I have sought in this Bill to make irretrievable breakdown justiciable by precisely defining its contents. The process is initiated by one or both parties stating that the marriage has broken down. There is then a year (as a minimum) for the purpose of trying to see whether the relationship can be retrieved and whether the marriage can proceed—
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I do not agree.
The Lord Chancellor: Obviously, we shall have to look at it in a little more detail later, but at the moment that is the purpose. The year should be for consideration and reflection. Machinery is provided for carrying that out.
One of the purposes plainly recognised in the Bill is the need to consider arrangements for the future after the divorce. The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, referred earlier to what the future holds. I believe that that is one of the most important things to be faced in connection with a contemplated divorce. The question of what the future will be like must be considered. As long as final positions have not been adopted, taking a look into the future and at what the situation will be as the family splits up, with the father possibly leaving home and not able to see the children very often—what so often happens, sadly, is that he gradually sees the children less, which is very bad for the children—is a vital part of that year of contemplation. That is why I have required in the Bill that those arrangements be finalised (generally speaking and subject to some exceptions) before the divorce is granted. That will ensure that before a divorce is granted the parties have to face up to the whole range of responsibilities that they have undertaken in their marriage. That is the purpose of the provisions.
In my view, it is not an intellectual fad but a proper analysis of what really happens when there is an irretrievable breakdown of a relationship—a complicated, intimate, valuable, and divinely appointed relationship. That is what is in question. I believe the provisions to be a sound basis for a reasonably civilised divorce law. I trust that that answers the question raised by my noble friend Lord Coleraine. In effect, I have defined in Clause 4 the conditions under which "irretrievable breakdown" will be satisfied.
Perhaps I may turn to the questions asked by my noble friend Lady Elles. First, analyses of what happens after a particular change in the law has been made are extremely difficult to put on a proper basis. As everybody has recognised, it is not only the law that causes divorces. Much more complicated issues than that are involved. We would really need to know what the rate of divorce would have been if the law had not been changed—and, in the nature of things, we cannot know that. So, in my view, there is only a limited value to be obtained from such analyses. One has to proceed on the basis of principle and take a rational approach to the problems. That was the approach set out in the

309
White Paper which I have sought to follow. I have not been able to find anything in the research to damage the conclusion which the White Paper reached.
On the second point about justice and the division of property, nothing in the Bill in any way damages the present rules in regard to the allocation of property. In particular, the rule is preserved that where it is inequitable to disregard it, the conduct of the parties will be taken into account in the allocation of the parties' property and so on.
Some people have talked about no-fault divorce. The noble Lord, Lord Habgood, wrote about that recently, pointing out that there is no suggestion that there is no fault. The suggestion is that it is not a sound basis upon which to found a divorce law. Of course people are at fault. There are few marriages which survive for long in which there has not been fault on one side or the other, and usually on both. A degree of tolerance and understanding is required. Mutual agreement is required. Parties require to he able to agree upon a course of conduct where there are choices. That is the nature of a successful marriage. Conduct has to be taken into account in a broad and just way. I believe that that is what the present law provides on this aspect, and the Bill in no way changes that.
Baroness Young: Perhaps—
7 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: Before the noble Baroness replies, I am sorry if I interrupted the noble and learned Lord from a sedentary position, but I reacted to what he said about a period for reflection and consideration. The problem is that we are in a situation where one party—not both parties—has said that the marriage has broken down irretrievably. So there will be only one party who will reflect. The other party who has been told, although he or she may not agree with it, that the marriage has broken down irretrievably, whether he or she likes it or not, may feel that after that he or she does not want to reflect because the other party has made it clear that the marriage has broken down. That is one-sided. That is why I reacted as I did.
The Lord Chancellor: I understood that the noble Lord reacted in that way. I did not take it in any way other than an informative reaction, which I was able to answer, as I thought, at the time. The reality is that one cannot force the parties. If someone is determined that his or her marriage has broken down and is not prepared to co-operate with anyone to do anything about it, there is nothing that the law can do. One has to face that sad fact. I am trying to put forward every possible persuasion on people to get together in the period set down. The period is provided for in Clause 7. The initiation is by one party, but the irretrievable breakdown is demonstrated only once the period for reflection and consideration has taken place.
310
As I said, realistically one knows that one cannot force people. Everything is being done in the Bill to give them a structure under which, if at all possible, they will come together.
Lord Elton: If the object is to put pressure on the silent party to become a party to the agreement, as it were, why is it that a statement that a marriage has broken down irretrievably made by one person is treated in the same way as one made by two? Is there not an opportunity there to exert some pressure?
The Lord Chancellor: The point is that it is the year passing that is required. That is an absolute and objective fact. Unless the relationship has been brought together, healed or restored in that time, the Bill proposes that there should then be a basis for saying that the marriage has broken down irretrievably. That is not the whole story. There is a hardship bar in Clause 10, to which amendments have been tabled, which is important. As a practical matter, if the parties have been unable to be reconciled and so get on with their marriage after a year, in my view the practical inference is that the marriage has broken down irretrievably. That is what I take from the results of the consultation. If the parties are agreed about it all, so much the better, but, sadly, when a relationship breaks down one of the great difficulties is to achieve any kind of agreement.
Lord Hamilton of Dalzell: Perhaps my noble and learned friend will elucidate further on the matter of justice. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, said that if one took fault out through the front door, in it would come through the back. What seems to me to be in prospect if a statement is made by one of the parties that the maker of the statement, or each of them, believes that the marriage has broken down is that it will enable someone to walk out of the marriage, possibly at considerable financial gain to himself or herself.
I thought I detected a hint from my noble and learned friend that that would be sorted out at some later stage. I wonder whether my noble and learned friend could elaborate.
The Lord Chancellor: Under the Bill, one party to a marriage may make a statement—a neutral statement—that in his or her opinion the marriage has broken down. It is intended that that statement should not contain allegations, and so on, against the other party to the marriage, because that is not likely to be conducive to healing the relationship. There then follows a period of a year, provided by Clause 7, for reflection and consideration. The hope is that during that year the parties will address their problems. Mediation is intended to help them to address those problems by communication one with the other rather than through representatives.
Experience shows that it is a lack of communication between the parties that often leads in the first instance to the breakdown of the marriage. A skilled mediator may be able to restore that kind of

311
communication. Talk about the future, I hope—at least in some circumstances—may lead also to reflection upon whether or not the parties should go forward.
Assuming that the year has now begun, the process I then envisage in the Bill is that there should be discussion between the parties, helped by a mediator, of what the future arrangements should be—all the arrangements relating to the children, property, and any other mailer that may be affected by the possible dissolution of the marriage. The year is intended for that purpose. It may take longer. The Bill requires that, except in special circumstances provided for in Schedule 1, the arrangements should be completed before a divorce is granted. There will be no question of anyone walking out in the way that my noble friend suggested unless and until the arrangements and terms upon which that is to happen have been settled between the parties.
There are of course possibilities of disagreement in that connection, but that is the scheme. Therefore justice is secured, so far as it can be, in relation to the allocation of property and the other matters that have to be dealt with. That is where justice in the whole arrangement has to come into play.
Lord Carr of Hadley: Perhaps I may ask my noble and learned friend one final point before he sits down. In the statement that he has just made, he seems to see the procedure moving from the statement, which may be a unilateral one, straight into mediation. I should have thought that there was need for a period of conciliation. I realise that that is provided for, but in the statement that my noble and learned friend has just made I do not see how that fits in.
The Lord Chancellor: One of the problems of divorce is that people reach that stage usually before seeking help of any kind. It is often late for any kind of conciliation, but mediation is required if a divorce is contemplated and if the future after divorce is to be studied. That is a most important aspect of the proposals.
I have provided that in relation to mediation, if there is apparently any prospect whatever that the parties will get together again the mediator will refer them to conciliation and, it is to be hoped, to reconciliation. The noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, made a point about my clauses. My intention in the clauses relating to conciliation is that, if there is any prospect of that, it will not affect the running of the time because if people believe that the year should run while there is still time to be reconciled that might damage the prospect of reconciliation. That is my intention but there may be some misunderstanding about it.
I believe that as a practical matter the most likely source of conciliation and, it is to be hoped, reconciliation is when the parties get together to look at the various problems that they face. I believe, too, that mediation in its very nature brings them to address what has separated them and what are the
312
problems between them that must be addressed. Therefore, this is intended as a practical method of addressing these matters.
There is a great variety of circumstances and it is difficult to legislate for them all. This is intended as a framework to encourage and, it is hoped, to bring about reconciliation where that is possible.
Lord Coleraine: I understood my noble and learned friend to say that there is no difference between the financial provision arrangements under the 1973 Act and those in the Bill. However, there is one very important difference which will have a profound effect on these matters. It is that under the 1973 Act financial provision arrangements can be made at the time of the decree nisi but cannot be brought into effect until the decree absolute. Under my noble and learned friend's proposals all these matters can be taken up and brought to finality at an early stage within the year of reflection and consideration.
The effect of that could he that a wife and child are taken away from the husband immediately the wife applies for financial provision. Within a few months the husband might find himself paying for the support of the wife and the child but without his home and even having to transfer the home to his wife. Under present practice that could not have happened until a much later stage of the proceedings. It throws a bad light on the effect of the Bill in promoting reconciliation.
The Lord Chancellor: We are moving away from the amendment but this is a matter for considerable consideration. In answer to my noble friend Lady Elles, I was referring to the basis on which property arrangements should take place. The Bill makes no change whatever to that. It makes different arrangements as to when exactly the various provisions can come into effect, but I believe that one of the important issues is realistically to face what the future will bring. If the parties are in a position completely to know what that is, so much the better for realising exactly what the future is after divorce. I believe that at least in some cases a look at the future as well as facing up to the responsibilities of marriage are extremely important features of the proposals.
The Earl of Onslow: Perhaps I may make only one point about the one-person application in respect of the irretrievable breakdown of marriage. If one partner in a marriage is totally and utterly determined that the marriage has broken down it is extremely unfortunate but there is nothing that the other partner can do about it. It is nasty and unpleasant but all divorce is nasty and unpleasant. I do not know one of my friends whose divorce has not been at least 70 per cent. on one side and 30 per cent. on the other. Normally it is 50:50, and that point needs making. That is why I support my noble and learned friend so strongly.
Baroness Young: We have strayed very far from the original amendment, which I said was a paving amendment. A number of points have been made and

313
I shall read most carefully what my noble and learned friend said. I do not intend to respond to all of them but it appears that he attaches immense importance to mediation. Where all those remarkable people will come from I do not know. At any rate, we are banking on all kinds of people managing to undertake the task. I had understood that mediation was about splitting the assets of the marriage and not about reconciliation and so forth. That is another debate which we shall come to later in the Committee stage. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Trumpington: I beg to move that the House do now resume. In moving the Motion I suggest that the Committee stage begins again at 8.15 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Transport Research Laboratory
7.15 p.m.
Baroness Castle of Blackburn Baroness Castle of Blackburn rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what progress has been made in negotiations for the sale of the Transport Research Laboratory.
The noble Baroness said: I beg to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. Earlier today I overheard two noble Lords from the other side of the House discussing this Question. One asked the other, "What's it all about?". The reply was, "It's about privatising the Transport Research Laboratory to make it more efficient". When I heard that Pavlovian reaction I despaired of our ever getting a quality of society or economy in this country which will enable us to compete in the modern world.
There was no recognition of the importance of the Question and of the fact that we were to discuss the future of a great national asset. As regards transport, for more than 60 years it has kept the 55 million people in this country among the safest in Europe. That does not happen by saying as a piece of ideology, "Oh, privatise everything". It does not happen by saying, "Never mind. Break it up and sell a bit here and another bit there and give it to the highest bidder. Never mind about the national interest".
It used to be a Conservative doctrine, "If it isn't broken don't fix it". Now it appears to be a doctrine, "Even if it's functioning very well, privatise it". I must not spend too much time on my passionate feeling about the emptiness and lack of intellectual argument in this new Conservative ideology because, surprising as it may seem to the House, I wish to be helpful tonight. I wish to help the Government to reach the right decision in the national interest. They have a very, very grave responsibility.
We are at a crucial moment in the history of this great laboratory, which is internationally renowned and used. The Government, having asked for bids for the TLR, have short-listed two and are on the point of deciding—indeed, they may already have decided—which of the two to choose. I venture to hope that if a decision has been made we shall be told tonight and that this House will be given a little political priority.
I wish to stress the points on which we are agreed and on which there is written evidence that we are agreed. The first is that this laboratory is widely acclaimed as a centre of excellence. Conservative Minister after Conservative Minister has affirmed that fact.
Secondly, it is agreed that when the Government—I believe that it was in 1993—decided to turn the laboratory into an executive agency. the staff and management responded with all the flexibility anyone could have asked. Again, there is written evidence in the form of statements from Conservative Ministers to that effect. Moreover, the laboratory has met every one of the efficiency targets that the Government set for it when it became an agency.
The third thing which is irrefutable is that when the Government decided to privatise they asked a prominent firm of consultants, Peat Marwick, to tell them the best way to do it. Peat Marwick was not allowed to say, "We'd better leave well alone". Therefore, it said that the only way to preserve the international influence, trade and work of the laboratory would be to retain its independence of commercial pressures and its impartiality. That is what you need in research; it is not pressure for profits but the facts upon which policies should be based. It was said that the best way to do that was to hand the laboratory over to a non-profit distributing company. Without that, it will lose its international status and it will be said that it is just a side-kick of some big, commercial firm.
Finally, there is a report of the Select Committee on Transport of another place of March 1994 which examined the proposed privatisation. I know that the Minister the other day dismissed that suggestion airily and said, "Oh, well Peat Marwick are only a hunch of consultants. Are you saying that we should abdicate our responsibility to choose just because of a body of experts?", but what the Government face is the fact that an all-party Select Committee said in its recommendations that it could not advise the House of Commons to endorse that privatisation until it was satisfied that the independence and impartiality would be maintained. If privatisation were to go ahead, it recommended that the TRL should be turned into a non-profit distributing company.
It is interesting to note that one of the members of that committee who voted for all its recommendations was none other than Mr. Peter Bottomley, a former junior Minister of Transport during 1986 to 1989 in this Conservative Government. He, as a former Minister of Transport, warned in an interview reported in the New Scientist on 6th January of this year that we are in danger of losing this great national interest to a

315
commercial concern. It would mean that we would be throwing away the confidence and expertise that this body can offer.
Those are the facts. We have now reached a crucial stage because the Government have received the final bids and have selected two of them. One is from that very commercial consortium which so alarmed the former Conservative junior Minister of Transport, Mr. Peter Bottomley. The consortium consists of four main interests. The first is Pell Frischmann, which is a firm involved in road construction. Then there is Mouchel Associates, which has civil engineering interests, together with the AA and the RAC.
I am sure—and I want to give the Government the advantage of every doubt—that the Government know how successive Ministers of Transport on both sides of the House suffered at the hands of the AA and the RAC whenever they attempted to restrain the mad, breakaway expansion of motoring or to insist on safety provisions, a reduction in pollution or to say that road building must take its share of public expenditure cuts. I give the Chancellor of the Exchequer credit—and, indeed, the Government—for having said in his last Budget that road construction must stand back a bit. But have the Government read the howls of rage from the AA and the RAC stating, for example, that the motorist has been made a victim of the Budget and that the Government are leading the roads to ruin by failing to build more? I suffered from that too when I introduced seat belts; indeed, the AA and the RAC were hardly my friends. They are not the friends of this Government either when they try to introduce a wider and more sensible policy.
That is one side of the story. I ask the Government to take the House into their confidence. If they are by any mischance considering giving the bid to that consortium, could they place in the Library a copy of the business plan that that bidder submitted in order to get its bid accepted? What commitment does that consortium make to the future of transport research development in this country? If it is not under some kind of legal obligation, we could have a repetition of what happened when AMEC Frischmann, another consortium, acquired parts of the Property Services Agency (formerly in the public sector) when it was recently privatised. I now understand—and perhaps the Minister can deal with the point in his response—that that consortium is planning to sell off the parts that it bought, perhaps too cheaply, to make a profit. Will that happen to our research laboratory?
On the other hand, we have the Transport Research Laboratory insider bid from staff and management in the name of the Transport Research Foundation. It would be a non-profit making distributing company. It would plough back into research any profits that it made, just as it made a recent surplus of £2.5 million which, if it were the foundation in power in the field, it would plough back into research for road safety, road improvement, car improvement, pedestrian safety improvement; indeed, into everything. I cannot believe that the Government can close their mind to the power
316
of the arguments on behalf of the bid recommended by the Select Committee of another place with a Tory majority and by their consultants.
In conclusion, I should like to express a word of hope. I am sure that the new Secretary of State for Transport will not sell out to a narrow road construction, motorist dominated consortium. I say that because he has made a name for himself. He wants a new era for the cyclist and the roads and facilities made safer. The TRL is already engaged in the necessary research to back up the policy of Sir George Young. Therefore, can the Minister tell us tonight that he accepts the power of argument and that his right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport will decide in favour of the Transport Research Foundation?
7.30 p.m.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for posing this Question. When I saw that she had tabled this Question I thought that my views would be somewhat at variance with hers. However, after listening to her excellent speech I realise that I am close to her. I should perhaps declare an interest as president of the Heavy Transport Association. I also have other connections with transport.
I, too, acknowledge the good work of the Transport Research Laboratory. It is a respected organisation which has done much work on crash tests, traffic management, the quiet heavy vehicle project that has made our commercial fleet a lot quieter, accident analysis and design of road layout. The role of the laboratory is clearly to carry out research mainly concerning road transport matters as required by the Department of Transport. However, its function can be similar to that of any other consultancy research establishment in the country except that the TRL only has one main customer, Her Majesty's Government, and also HMG are largely tied to the TRL. I assume that is the problem that the Minister seeks to address by looking for a privatisation solution.
The Minister also needs to place the research that he requires with those organisations which are best placed to do it. Recently the department had to consider the design and construction of recovery vehicles. The Minister commissioned a report from the Defence Research Agency. Initially that sounds rather a surprising choice but on closer inspection one finds that the DRA is responsible for the engineering management of the army's fleet of recovery vehicles. That is a large fleet. The DRA has carried out that investigation but the investigation into traffic management and congestion and strengths of roads was carried out by the TRL because that body is the expert in that area. I was impressed by the use of appropriate research facilities. As it happened, both bodies were agencies of the Government.
The difficulty of selecting a consultancy on a commercial basis is that one must select the right one and cost is not the most important factor. In fact, it is probably the least important factor. One cannot just consider the cheapest quote for doing the job. The main consideration is whether the consultancy understands

317
the problems of HMG—TRL is in a good position to understand those problems—and whether the consultancy or the research establishment has the facilities and the experience to carry out the necessary research. The TRL clearly has the facilities and the experience which have been built up over a long period of time, as the noble Baroness said. Therefore I feel it would be in a good position to continue to obtain this work. My attitude is that in principle there is no problem with moving the TRL into the private sector because HMG will not be tied to the TRL and vice versa.
The worry that I have detected in industry concerns what HMG's commitment is to carrying out sufficient research. Will they just carry out the bare minimum and perhaps commission a report to give weight to a view that they have, or will they carry on with basic research to ascertain whether there is a problem, studying accident statistics and the sort of work that the TRL does now? The other worry I have is that some types of research clearly should be commissioned by the Highways Agency, for example that concerning the strengths of roads and bridges. I hope that the Minister will ensure that sufficient funding will continue to be available for that.
As regards the selection of bidders, I understand that the motoring organisations intend to bid, as the noble Baroness said. The role of the motoring organisations is to support the position of private car users. Their function is not to support pedestrians or cyclists. They probably do not do much to support motor cyclists, goods vehicle operators or any other users of the road. I do not think such a move would be good for the motoring organisations who I believe should stick to their core activity which is to look after private car users. The noble Baroness has mentioned the impartiality requirement. She was right to do so. Let us not see a motoring organisation becoming involved in running a laboratory.
As regards a dedicated consultancy business taking over the TRL as a profit making business, I have no problem with that at all. There are plenty of research consultancies which exist purely to make a profit. There is no reason why they should not continue to produce impartial research and reports. My favoured option is the management buy-out. Obviously the Minister will have to check the stability, the funding and the business plan of a management buy-out as well as of anyone else who wishes to take over the organisation, but I support the management buy-out route. Clearly the problem that the Minister has is to select a suitable, unbiased buyer for the operation. If he finds that the MBO cannot be accepted for practical reasons, he may have a big problem in finding someone who is suitable and unbiased. My question to the Minister is the following: what are the criteria for selection and how will the Minister ensure the independence of the laboratory in the future? I would say in summary that I do not think the Minister's policy is flawed, but I would be interested to hear his comments as regards the selection of a buyer.
7.37 p.m.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Castle of Blackburn, has done us all a service in keeping this issue alive even if the TRL is destined for inevitable privatisation at the hands of this increasingly dogma driven Government. One remembers with admiration—even nostalgia—some of the other mighty battles in which she has been so often engaged, sometimes triumphantly.
The reasons for the sell-off were given in a Written Answer to the noble Lord, Lord Gainford, on 14th March 1995. In summarising the reasons I use my words and not the Minister's. The reasons were to get independent advice at good value for money; to transfer the TRL to the private sector as soon as possible and to realise as much cash as possible. Those were the reasons for selling off the TRL. In the same reply the Minister added that the purchaser would have to be of sufficient substance; that there was interest on the part of the private sector in acquiring the business with a lease or freehold interest in the property and buildings required for the operation of that business—the property and buildings are substantial—that the Government would provide guarantees of further work for a privatised TRL; that bidders would have to demonstrate that the supply of advice and research to the Government would not cause a conflict of interest with their other operations, and that a management buy-out would be considered.
Subsequently, answering a Question in this House that was stimulated by the noble Baroness, the Minister said in effect that offering a guarantee of future business to a private purchaser was not inconsistent with not giving such a guarantee to the TRL itself. That reply seemed to be greeted with a certain amount of disbelief at that time. The Minister further said that the TRL had faced a loss of business and needed to seek business elsewhere which could not be satisfactorily achieved whilst the TRL was in the public sector. At that point a noble Lord intervened to ask why not. He did not get a clear answer. However, we know that the Government continue to be, as other governments have been in the past, extremely reluctant to allow organisations which operate at arm's length to function in any way in the private market as private suppliers to private businesses. I understand that that is EL problem, but it seems to me that it would be much more sensible to retain TRL in its present circumstances and enable it to function more effectively outside the constraints of being able only in effect to supply the Government.
At present TRL is a very successful and expanding business notwithstanding the remarks made on 19th April. Its turnover has increased and is now well over £31 million a year. As the noble Baroness said, its profits were in the region of £2.5 million. In 1994–95, the last year for which we have a report, £1 million was invested in expanding the assets of the company. Therefore, it is not a company which is dying on its feet and cannot survive. Quite the contrary.
It is also noticeable from the report that a good deal more business is being conducted abroad. If, in the current climate, the Government, because of the decline

319
in their road-building programme and for other reasons, are not able to sustain the TRL, it seems to me that it is in those countries which do not have such constraints that TRL might well find a satisfactory market for its undoubtedly excellent products.
The interesting question is why it has taken nine or 10 months for anything else to happen. Like the noble Baroness, I saw the titbits in the Daily Telegraph and Independent on 18th December which informed us that the Minister was in difficulty over the decision and that as well as the management buy-out, which it was fairly certain would be forthcoming as that was the obvious thing for the management to do, one other consortium was bidding. As already stated, that consortium includes an engineering consultancy company and two organisations dedicated to the wellbeing of the private motorist.
Why has the decision been held up? It has taken nine months to sell a desirable piece of property. In local government we are obliged to move a good deal faster than that, and the Government were very keen to raise large sums of money from this particular sell-off. Have there been problems in relation to TUPE considerations? Are there difficulties in finding a purchaser for TRL who can guarantee that there will be no conflict of interest between its existing business and the business of the road laboratory? Is that the problem? Or are people not interested in guaranteeing the continuing development of all aspects of the laboratory's work? These range from pedestrian safety and child restraints to the safety of vehicles, the design of roads, the surfacing materials which go on those roads, how pavements are maintained in a good state of repair and the movement of transport through urban areas efficiently and effectively. SCOOT is one example of the programmes which the laboratory has developed. They do not necessarily all hang together with the interests of any individual private company or group of private companies. They are a disparate collection of activities. They include an interest in pollution control, which is not necessarily something an engineering company wants to take on. Therefore, that might be the problem.
It is my strong feeling that if this excellent and well-regarded institution is to be sold then by far the best way of doing that, and achieving what the Government themselves want to achieve in terms of independence of advice, would he to allow the management buy-out to take place. That seems to me by far the best solution. Like the noble Baroness, I hope that we may be informed even tonight that that will happen, in which case we are all wasting our breath. Perhaps I should sit down with that plea.
7.45 p.m.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, as previous speakers have said, thanks are due to my noble friend Lady Castle for raising this matter once again. Tracing through the records I find that she has asked at least seven Questions on the subject in the past year. Her speech today indicates that she still requires a lot of answers.
320
In various ministerial answers over the past 12 months there has been the suggestion or implication that somehow my noble friend's only reasons for objecting to the sell-off of TRL are the desire to maintain the status quo and an ideological resistance to privatisation. I served as a junior transport Minister under the noble Baroness, and I can assure the House that my noble friend was never one blindly to defend the status quo. Her record at the Ministry of Transport was one of change, innovation and boldness. She mentioned that she introduced seat-belts. I believe that her greatest fight with the status quo was the introduction of Blennerhassett—the drink-driving laws—which we all now accept as being one of the great innovations in transport. Her speech tonight was certainly not doctrinaire. I hope that the Minister will accept that we do not approach this subject in that way either.
To many of us TRL is a special case. Any body which has the task of guiding Ministers in the spending of the huge sums involved in road construction and transport infrastructure must be independent. It has an awesome task and responsibility in pursuing safety on our roads, which it fulfils with commendable efficiency.
I am particularly uneasy about the question of TRL's independence. That point has been voiced by many speakers in relation to the privatisation of TRL. On 19th April last year I asked the Minister whether he was aware of some of the work done for overseas countries on highly expensive contracts by the National Engineering Laboratory. I recall one particular case when one of the major countries of the world—America—had a huge engineering project and could not find a single organisation in that country, which did not have any connection with the industry itself, to undertake the necessary research. Every university engineering facility received subsidies from one or other of the big companies. So the work went to the National Engineering Laboratory at East Kilbride. It was a massive contract. The work was done behind safety screens so that no one would be able to interfere with it and the locks were sealed.
The National Engineering Laboratory had the same status as the TRL has now. I do not believe that we should let that go easily. As my noble friend Lady Castle said, TRL has a world-wide reputation. We do not have enough organisations left in this country with that kind of reputation; we should hold on to it. Under very strict security assessments, the job was undertaken in East Kilbride to the total satisfaction of the client.
At col. 486 of the Official Report of 19th April last, the Minister gave me two assurances. First, he said that no type of bid would be ruled out, including a management buy-out and running the laboratory on a non-profit making basis. Has he considered this hid, as he promised? Secondly, he said that the onus would be on the bidders to demonstrate that they would he able to maintain their independence. I cannot understand how one does such a thing when there is no public accountability, and where a private industry is primarily, and properly from its point of view, concerned with the bottom line on the balance sheet.
I am sure that the Minister is familiar with the House of Commons Cmnd Paper 647, published last July. According to the annual report of the TRL. the

321
laboratory made a profit of almost £2.4 million on a turnover of £32 million. I should have thought that that was most satisfactory from a body whose first function should be the reduction of transport accidents, the saving of life and the general economy of the transport industry. I am sure that the Minister will have studied the TRL annual report. On page 16 of the annual report, the Minister will have noted the achievement targets set out by the Secretary of State. In 1994–95 five targets were set out. The targets, and the success with which they were met, are published. They are very satisfactory.
It is puzzling why the Government are so keen on the privatisation of this organisation. The Minister will be aware of the sheer professionalism of the organisation and the dedication and involvement of its staff. I visited it quite frequently and was fascinated by the work that it was doing and the general quality that was apparent in everything it did. It is an organisation with a reputation recognised world-wide which is a credit to the country.
Perhaps I may be a little doctrinaire for a moment. I remember listening to that brilliant speech of the late Lord Stockton. It was the famous speech about selling the family silver. In that wonderful way in which he was able to express matters, I thought the most telling part was when he said, "You sell the family silver, and this and that, and find that all you have left are the Canalettos". I believe that that is the point that the Government are reaching. In order to gain as much money as possible for an election treasure chest, they are willing to sell an asset built up by dedicated people over a long period of time. I hope that the Minister has had second thoughts and will give a serious opinion tonight that there will be an independent organisation. In other words, I support the idea of a management buy-out if that is the only way in which we can save this asset.
7.53 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Viscount Goschen): My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Castle, for the opportunity to discuss the important issues concerning the future of the Transport Research Laboratory. As has been said in the debate today, it is the most recent in a long line of Questions which the noble Baroness has brought to your Lordships' attention. It demonstrates her commitment to examining the future of this organisation.
The debate is particularly timely, because, as your Lordships may be aware, we have recently received final offers from the two short-listed bidders in the sale of the laboratory. However, I can say to the noble Baroness, Lady Castle, that a decision has not been made; and that I am sure that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport will read carefully the transcript of today's debate and will have high regard for the views which your Lordships have expressed.
We fully recognise the value of the work which the T'RL has contributed over the years, and indeed the high reputation in which the laboratory is held as a centre of excellence. However, we have to look to the future. We
322
cannot ignore the fact that the TRL has lost business. As a public sector agency funded by taxpayers' money, the TRL is necessarily constrained in competing for work with the private sector. Although one is often asked regarding a wide range of organisations, "Why not just waive Treasury rules and pretend that they are competing on the same basis?", a government-backed organisation competing with private sector organisations is not competing on the same basis and must be constrained in the way that those organisations are. The prospect of business declining, with no means of arresting that decline, has led to our decision to move the laboratory into the private sector.
The competition to transfer TRL began last summer when prospective purchasers were invited to submit initial bids to Price Waterhouse, our financial advisers. The sale memorandum giving details about the TRL business attracted a great deal of interest and several substantial bids for the laboratory were received in August. A number of those bidders were then asked to submit confirmed or revised bids by October on the basis of additional information about the laboratory, its business and markets.
We announced in November the two short-listed bidders and those bidders have now submitted their best and final offers. The noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, asked me whether I would stand by my assertion that we would consider the management buy-out. Indeed, that is the case. I do not think that I have participated in a debate for a long while in which so many statements that I have previously made in your Lordships' House have been quoted back at me. It is my duty to make sure that I have been entirely consistent. I hope that by the conclusion of my brief remarks this evening that will be proven.
The bids constitute a consortium comprising Pell Frischmann Consulting Engineers Limited, Mouchel Associates Limited, the Automobile Association and the Royal Automobile Club, and, on the other hand, the Transport Research Foundation which includes members of TRL's existing management. The foundation is bidding to acquire TRL as a non-profit distributing company.
The noble Baroness, Lady Castle, referred—it has been done in the past—to the KPMG Peat Marwick report. It has been suggested by some that the Government should simply have turned the laboratory into a non-profit distributing company, without having gone through the competitive sale process. In fact the KPMG report in 1993 identified two preferred sale options: a consortium sale; and privatisation as a non-profit distributing company. That is the choice we face in deciding between the final bids that we received for the laboratory.
For reasons of confidentiality, and to protect the integrity of the sale process, I cannot reveal details of the offers made by the short-listed bidders. Neither, as your Lordships will appreciate, can I disclose details of the discussions which have been held with both bidders. However, what is abundantly clear is that we have two very strong bids for the laboratory. I contest what the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, asserted. She felt that the

323
time-scale was long—I would contest that—and that we were in difficulty with a lack of high quality bids. That has not been the case. On the question of time-scale, it is important that when considering such an important organisation we go through a proper competitive sale process and give all the bids the proper, careful and detailed attention that they deserve. I am delighted that the TRL has received the quality of bids that it has.
The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, asked about the evaluation of the bids and how we would take that process forward. There is no question of either bid being given preference in evaluation of final offers. The final offers will be assessed on an equal basis against the sale objectives announced by the then Secretary of State for Transport in March 1995. I think that that is the point to which the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, referred rather than our reasons for selling the laboratory. Our aims are to secure the continued provision of high quality independent research and development at good value for money across the range of the department's inland surface transport needs; to transfer the laboratory to the private sector as soon as reasonably practicable; and to optimise the net proceeds to the taxpayer. We expect to make an announcement about the selected purchaser shortly. The sale should be completed as soon as possible thereafter. I regret that we are not yet in a position where I can inform your Lordships of the results of the sale process.
I believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, touched on the issue of real estate and the property which is concerned with the laboratory. We intend to grant a lease for those parts of the sites at Crowthorne and Livingston required by the purchaser of the laboratory. This will include the research test track at Crowthorne. We envisage a separate sale of the freehold of the sites as soon as possible after the transfer of TRL to the private sector. The key point is that the purchaser will be able to lease the parts of the property which it requires for producing its research.
One of the key issues which was discussed by all who have contributed to the debate this evening is independence and impartiality. We have made clear throughout the sale process the importance we attach to TRL remaining as a source of high quality, independent research for government and other customers. We have asked for assurances from bidders that TRL's reputation for independence and integrity will be safeguarded under their ownership. We will be considering all aspects of final bids in selecting the preferred purchaser, including the bidders' proposals for ensuring that no conflicts of interest arise which might affect TRL's ability to provide impartial research and advice to government.
I do not accept the argument that has been put forward on a number of occasions that impartial research cannot be provided by bodies in the private sector. Nor do I share the view that commerce and integrity are incompatible. A great deal of research is
324
done for the Government by a wide range of organisations, some in the state sector and some in the private sector.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, I hesitate to interrupt the Minister but I do not believe that anyone has asserted that independent advice cannot be provided from the private sector. However, noble Lords are worried that inevitably—as was easy to forecast—bidders for the laboratory come from a sector which has its own engineering, construction and consulting interests. It is that conflict of interest which causes worry.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I believe that the point I was making has been put forward, although not in the debate this evening, I agree. That is why I sought to address it. On the noble Baroness's specific point, that is why we have to ensure that there are no conflicts of interest which are likely to produce anything other than impartial research for the Government. That is why we put so much effort into that side.
The importance attached by the Government to maintaining TRL's reputation for independence is reflected in the sale objectives. The crucial point which must be made this evening in response to a number of questions—how to guarantee the reliability, independence and impartiality—is that it must not be forgotten that the Government will continue to remain a big customer. Going on to detail, it must also not be forgotten that we are to provide guarantees of future research work. We would not hesitate to review or cancel contracts in the future if there were grounds for believing that TRL's independence and impartiality were in doubt. That shows strongly that any new purchaser would have to take the views of the main customer of the organisation extremely seriously.
Baroness Castle of Blackburn: Perhaps the Minister will allow me to intervene on the point about the relationship with the Department of Transport. Could he give the House an assurance that when a decision between the two bidders is reached the commercial consortium will not be offered more Department of Transport contracts than are offered to the Transport Research Foundation?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the bids will be considered on the same basis as I have outlined for the sale objectives. The selection of bidders will be impartial. It will be a fair competitive process. I can reassure the noble Baroness on the specific point which she makes; the competition will be fair to select the correct bidder.
In the limited time which I have available, the next issue to touch on is the guarantees of future work. To underline our commitment to TRL in the future, it is our intention to provide the laboratory with guarantees of future research work for a number of years. The details of the financial terms of the sale are for settlement with potential purchasers, but we have advised final bidders that we expect to be committing over £50 million of research work to TRL over the next four years. The guarantees will be subject to the delivery of high quality, independent and impartial research.

325
As the customer, we are continuing to fund an extensive road transport research programme costing well in excess of £90 million over the next three years, that is despite the difficulties imposed by a tough public expenditure round. We have to look extremely carefully at our spending priorities but we have still managed to commit this level of funding.
I can see no reason why privatisation should affect the nature of the research that we will require. There is no reason why it should lead to important long-teen research work being abandoned in favour of more short-term commercially exciting work. That is the point the noble Baroness was making. It is the Government's position as a customer that binds the process together.
Privatisation will bring considerable benefits for TRL to enable it to compete more effectively across a wider market, providing material to both the public and the private sectors. It offers the laboratory the best prospect of securing its own future in a competitive environment. I believe that the debate this evening has highlighted some important issues and I hope that I have been able to reassure your Lordships about the future of the laboratory.
The Earl of Courtown: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.15 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 8.6 p.m. to 8.15 p.m.]

Family Law Bill [H.L.]
House again in Committee on Clause 2.
Baroness Young Baroness Young moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 2, line I, at end insert ("by reason of the behaviour of one or both of the parties which is destructive of their marriage and rendering them irreconcilable").
The noble Baroness said: in moving this amendment, I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 18, 21, 23 and 24.
This amendment is concerned with the whole issue of fault. It is a matter of great concern and interest to the whole Committee. Amendment No. 4 is a very good example of the kind of amendment that we should measure against Amendment No. 1 to see how far it measures up to the kind of things that we all agree are desirable.
As I said at Second Reading, I am very concerned about the abolition of Fault, not because I am on some moral high ground jag but because I believe that the abolition of fault undermines marriage vows, civil contract and individual responsibility. The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, made that point very well in his remarks on Amendment No. 1. Many lawyers with whom I have discussed this issue maintain that it undermines even the legal basis of marriage.
I find it quite extraordinary that if, for example, I hire a car and I break the contract, I am at fault. If, however, I break my marriage vows, I am not. I find that as a
326
principle in life quite extraordinary. Indeed, I have listened with increasing astonishment to the arguments made in Committee. I strongly suspect that if we did not live in such a cynical society, the whole lot would be regarded as a very bad joke. I am quite frankly astonished at what has been proposed. Removing fault unquestionably lowers the value of marriage by removing nearly all the obstacles to divorce.
In preparation for this Committee stage, I reread the remarks at Second Reading of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor on this subject. Like any examination candidate, I felt that I must attempt an answer. My noble and learned friend said:
"My noble friend Lady Young suggested that we were seeking to obliterate fault. I do not think one will find in the Bill any suggestion that there is no such thing as fault, but what one does find is an omission from the facts showing irretrievable breakdown of any reference to adultery or unreasonable behaviour. I posed a question at the beginning of the debate to which so far I have not heard an answer. How does the fact that a very quick divorce can be awarded in respect of a person who has grievously broken his marriage vows by committing adultery and can then re-marry very quickly indeed support the institution of marriage?"—[Official Report, 30/11/95; col. 786.]
I have the temerity to say that there is a great weakness in that argument. Of course I do not agree with quickie divorce. But that could be dealt with by having a year's delay. One does not have to abolish fault. I simply do not understand why the two matters are inextricably linked together. The argument has appeared all the way through this legislation. It comes out in the Law Commission's report.
The second argument put forward on Amendment No. 1 was by the right reverend Prelate, the Bishop of St. Edmundsbury and Ipswich. If I understood him correctly, his argument was that we are all at fault. I agree; we are all miserable sinners. am certain that I am one. I do not know about anyone else, but I am happy to call myself a sinner and indeed I am very conscious of it. But the fact of the matter is that if I drive my car at more than 70 miles an hour down the motorway and hit someone else, I am a miserable sinner and so, in terms, is the man whom I have hit; but I am at fault. It seems to me a most extraordinary argument that because we are, as it were, all at fault all the time, then one cannot he at fault in marriage. I do not understand that idea.
I have listened to many clever people with their clever arguments. When I started my political career on Oxford City Council, we frequently had great debates with the university. One met extremely clever people and I realised that their great advantage was that they could put a very bad case very well. One listened to their argument for quite a time and suddenly realised that it was complete rubbish. I feel that that is exactly what is happening in this case. I wish that it were a joke but it is not. It is an extremely serious matter. A combination of lawyers, through the Law Commission, and the Church, through the Bishops, have decided that there is no fault involved when two individuals who have undertaken what must be the most important thing that they ever do—get married and either make their vows in church or make a civil contract—determine to break those contracts. That seems to me to be unbelievable

327
and would have been unbelievable to past generations. It is only in our present generation that such an extraordinary concept should arise at all.
I see my noble friend Lord Onslow in the Chamber. He said that in his experience the blame for failure of a marriage was 50:50—he corrects me to say that he said "70:30". We all have anecdotal evidence about divorces. I can tell him of probably my greatest schoolfriend, whose husband told her, when she was still in hospital having her second baby, that he did not love her any more and he went off with someone else. I do think that he was at fault. Absolutely nothing that the lawyers, the Church or anybody else can say to me will convince me that he was not at fault. I do not say that my friend was perfect, but in my opinion she was a very nice person and a very good wife. There are many such cases. To pretend that something is as it is not is very damaging. The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, was right about what he said on the first amendment. We do need to take this matter very seriously.
The reason for this particular legislation is exactly the same reason that was given for the legislation in 1969. Therein lies the danger. In that case we were told that the legislation would abolish the quickie divorce. I approve of that. I think it is a very good thing. However, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, said, quickie divorces were in fact arrived at by a series of statutory instruments from the Lord Chancellor's Department—not under the present noble and learned Lord but under a former Lord Chancellor. Now, we are changing our minds about that.
We are being told that this Bill ought to make the law more understandable and more respected. But will it do so? What is the message—the real message, when we are not in the Chamber or arguing legal points—that is going out to young people? The real message is that at the end of one year a man or a woman may divorce his or her spouse without giving any reason at all and against the spouse's will. That is the real message that is going out. None of the convoluted arguments saying that everyone is at fault and there should be mediation to think further about the relationship will carry because the central message will be that this is an easier way to obtain a divorce. As Melanie Phillips put it very cleverly, it is "no pain, no blame and no shame". That sums up the matter.
The inference that has come up about no fault is that the law makes no difference. I should be the last person to say that divorce law can make a vast difference to the numbers of divorces. But, if we sit in this Chamber and say solemnly that law has no influence on behaviour, what on earth are we all doing most of the time in passing legislation? Why are we doing that if we do not believe that it affects behaviour?
I suggest that one reason for that—one among many, because there is no one reason for the rise in the divorce rate—is that divorce has become progressively easier. There is no stigma attached to it. Now, one does not even call it divorce; people "split up"—that is the "in" phrase—so far as I can see for no particular reason at all in many instances. It is now part of the culture of life; but, as I said, there is to be no pain, no blame and
328
no shame. To think that that is what we believe marks an advance! I simply do not understand it. I shall judge whether we can obtain real amendment to this piece of legislation by what happens on the series of amendments that I have tabled. The amendments are probably not technically correct or absolutely right but they are attempts to bring back some moral purpose to stand behind this legislation.
There was the 1969 Act, when we were told—I have been told since on many occasions also—that the whole concept of fault went at that time. That is not quite true. The present law gives irretrievable breakdown as the sole ground for divorce but, as we have been told, it must be proved by one of five facts: adultery; unreasonable behaviour; desertion; two years' separation with joint consent; or five years' separation where one does not consent. The broad motive behind that legislation in 1969 was to make the law more understandable and more acceptable. But, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, said, every prediction that was made about it has proved false. In fact, the net effect has been to increase the numbers of divorces. The next time the Law Commission reports—that is the basis of this discussion, the Law Commission Bill—it may have the same kind of arguments; namely, a law to make legislation more understandable and respected and to sort out some of the problems. We shall probably be given the same pious hopes and I believe that we shall simply see an increase in the numbers of divorces. That is what makes me so unhappy about this Bill.
I should like to take up the point of my noble friend Lady Elles about the American situation. A number of American states have had no fault divorce for some considerable time. Interestingly enough, only last week there was a report in the Wall Street Journal that one of the American states which had no fault divorce was considering repealing the legislation and returning to a fault-based system. Of course, the number of divorces increases. I know the difficulties concerning statistics and in comparing exactly like with like and measuring one thing with another. The fact of the matter is that wherever there has been no fault divorce, the numbers of divorces have risen. I should not like to stand by all the figures that I have seen quoted in newspapers but the numbers of divorces will go up because of how the average person—not the clever person—sees the matter. I ask noble Lords to picture in their minds the young person who has left school at 15 to get his or her first job. They see that there is no fault divorce and ask themselves why they should worry about the whole thing—indeed, probably why get married in the first place; and, let alone having got married, why worry about divorce. That is the message. The Americans discovered that it increased the number of divorces. We should take up the point made so well by my noble friend and look at foreign experience. After all, they must have something to tell us.
Whatever one does or does not do in legislation, one cannot legislate to abolish acrimony. I am blessed with a happy marriage and a happy family life. I say to myself every day how blessed I am. I have seen friends who, tragically, had extremely unhappy marriages. They suffer and feel bitter and acrimonious. The idea that

329
suddenly, because they appear before a mediator—presumably they have to volunteer—the acrimony will somehow disappear seems to fly in the face of human experience.
It is easy for me to say that one should not feel acrimony. I have never had cause, so I do not know. However, friends of mine have suffered. I have received many tragic letters from people who have suffered; I have a file full concerning the Bill. At Second Reading, when talking about the Pensions Bill, I referred to the tragic letters I had received from older women, dumped for younger wives. Their husbands are at fault and the wives feel bitter. We cannot get rid of that acrimony. Increasingly, tragically, we find cases of younger men being pushed out of their homes by their wives after being married for around 10 years for no other reason than that they are bored. It is a disgrace. The man is quite justified in saying that the woman is at fault; she is at fault and should recognise it.
When one is married one has a responsibility to make it work. It is hard work. To go into marriage thinking it is a permanent honeymoon is ridiculous. It is hard work every day and one must learn to put up with all sorts of things that one may not like and have a sense of humour about it. Therefore, to think that we can abolish acrimony by this Bill will not do.
I turn specifically to my amendments. They are quite clear. Amendment No. 4 is an opportunity to debate the whole issue of fault. It makes the point that one may divorce by reason of the behaviour of one or both parties which is destructive to the marriage, making them irreconcilable. That may not be the absolute answer. I do not say that it is. Amendment No. 18 makes the same kind of point in rather different language. Amendments Nos. 21,, 23 and 24 come back to the concept that there is some fault.
I do not suggest, and would not dream of suggesting, to the Committee that the amendments are perfectly drafted. However, I ask every Member of the Committee to consider carefully what the message is that we are sending out to young people by this Bill. My grandchildren are fastened in my mind's eye. If we could project ourselves 20 years on, what will the Law Commission be saying then? We will have abolished fault; everybody will be able to divorce themselves after one year and probably, a little further down the line, it will be a case of, "Why bother with marriage at all?"
I do not say that as a complete joke. I am extremely worried at the way the argument is progressing down a slippery slope, the end of which nobody knows. Within a generation we have one in three marriages ending in divorce. There are 1.5 million desperately unhappy children as a result of divorce. Anybody who believes that smoothing the way will make it easier for children should talk to people in the education world.
Over Christmas I was talking to a primary schoolteacher who said that she could pick out the children in her class from broken homes. One can: they suffer and go. on suffering. Only recently we had an American postgraduate to lunch in our home, aged around 28. He was in a terrible state. He said, "My parents have just divorced and I cannot get over it." The
330
idea that the pain does not go on and on for children and that it can somehow be smoothed out by some simple system is quite wrong.
I am searching for the right way to proceed and make no apologies for that. I am searching for a way to make people face up to their responsibilities. That is what we should be doing, not pretending that ht is all easy, not saying, as I have heard it said several times in Committee, "Well, they decided to bust up and that is it." It is not. They ought to have tried. Perhaps they did. They should try harder. That is what the Bill should be about.
I explained to my noble and learned friend that it is not my intention to press any of these amendments this evening. I open up this issue because I regard it as one of the big issues of the Bill. It is one by which I shall judge whether we really believe in buttressing marriage; in making people face their responsibilities and in recognising, when they have done something wrong, that they are at fault and that we should say so. I hope therefore that, if these amendments are not correctly drafted or do not fit, something will come back which will meet my case. It is a serious issue. I hope the Committee will consider it carefully. I beg to move.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Ashbourne: I support my noble friend Lady Young, who so movingly moved the amendment. The purpose is to ensure that the marriage contract cannot be broken unilaterally by one party against the wishes of the other without cause. It also introduces adultery, which is the only scriptural ground for divorce.
There should be a good reason for one party to obtain a divorce without the consent of the other. In a word, the amendment changes the Bill into what I would call a, "No fault, no divorce Bill". By that I mean that if there is no fault, there is no divorce. Everyone who married in a Church of England church will readily understand that. They took solemn vows that their marriage would be,
"for better for worse, for richer for poorer, in sickness and in health…until death us do part".
I am aware that many people do not have the advantage of being married in a Church of England church. Nevertheless, they will clearly understand my meaning.
While I am on my feet perhaps I can raise one point with my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor. Many people have referred to quickie divorces as representing 75 per cent. of divorces in the recent past. I am assured by the Office of Population and Censuses and Surveys that 32 per cent. of all divorces in 1993 were achieved in under six months and that, of those, only 15 per cent. obtained divorces in under six months where children under the age of 16 were involved. That is an important point. It is a comparison between the quickie divorce and the one year proposed by the Bill. If my noble and learned friend can clarify that point, I shall be greatly in his debt.
The Lord Bishop of Oxford: I am particularly sorry to find myself in disagreement with the noble Baroness,

331
Lady Young. I say most sincerely that I respect the deep conviction and passion with which she speaks and share with her the sense of the sanctity of marriage.
I go further than that. She is right to emphasise the fact that when a marriage breaks down it is certainly possible, in a fair number of instances, to say—so far as we can say in this life—that one partner is more to blame than another. I agree with the noble Baroness. We can say that one person seems to be more at fault. But the point is that an indication of that fault, however grievous, is not necessarily an indication of an irretrievable breakdown of the marriage. We all know of people, friends of ours, where there has been an illicit relationship in the marriage but the marriage has nevertheless recovered and gone on. The fact that adultery has taken place has not been of itself an indication that the marriage has irretrievably broken down.
The noble Baroness gave a shocking example of a man who left his wife just when she had given birth to her second child. That is a grievous fault. But even in that extreme instance it is not necessarily certain evidence that the marriage has irretrievably broken down. Even in those dire circumstances that marriage could recover.
So the question at issue before the Committee is quite simply: what is the best evidence that the marriage has irretrievably broken down? The present divorce law has its basis in irretrievable breakdown and what is brought forward in the way of mental cruelty or physical cruelty is evidence that it has broken down. The question is: what is the best evidence that the marriage has irretrievably broken down?
It is the conviction of the majority of the Bishops on this Bench that better evidence than is provided by the present divorce law is a year's serious consideration and reflection, with the opportunity of marriage counselling for those willing to avail themselves of it, the opportunity of mediation, and the possibility, as the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor so well put it, of real communication taking place between the two partners, perhaps for the first time for months and years. It is our equally sincere conviction that, if we are looking for evidence of an irretrievable breakdown, better than the evidence put forward by the Bill is a year's serious consideration and reflection with every opportunity being given to mend the marriage and to make arrangements which are the least acrimonious possible.
The noble Baroness stressed that some people are at fault. The word "fault" brings to mind the idea of punishment. If we break the law, we are punished. But one of the problems with the present divorce law is that a person can commit adultery and commit a fault against the marriage contract and be rewarded for it in their own eyes by being able to engage in another marriage. In this area there is not a simple happy relationship between fault and punishment. Sometimes it works in a perverse way: the person who is most at fault, the person who is most at blame, might get what he or she wants.
332
It is our sincere conviction that the proposals of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor provide better evidence that the marriage has been tested to the limit and that it has irretrievably broken down. Although Melanie Phillips puts forward the evocative phrase, "No pain, no blame, no shame", if we examine the marriages of our friends, the marriages that we know have broken down, I can envisage few marriages which break down where there is no pain, no blame or no shame. As has been said once or twice before in the Chamber, when marriages break down there is always pain and there is probably a great sense of failure. So, striking and rhetorical though that phrase is, I do not think we should be beguiled by it into trying to think that breakdown, under whatever circumstances, is less than painful.
The noble Baroness rightly raised the question of what message will be going out from this place if the Bill is finally approved by Parliament as a whole. That is a very serious question. We do not want to send out the wrong message. But if we include within the Bill the basic objectives debated at the beginning of the day on the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, it will be clear that it is a Bill designed to strengthen marriage so far as it can be strengthened by the law. I shall not speak about these matters now, but if we support one or two other amendments on marriage counselling and proper mediation I believe that we can not only have a divorce law which is effective and humane but we shall have done what we can to strengthen the institution of marriage.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Elton: As my noble friend is not rising to deal with that point, I should like to deal with one narrower, but I think germane, issue with her. She gave an extreme example of a divorce in which one party would seem to be not only innocent but grievously injured. What paths would her amendments leave open to that person, or someone in a similar position, who did not wish to put the other partner—their spouse—in the dock as the guilty party? As the right reverend Prelate said, the concept of fault is automatically followed by the concept of punishment. Since we have been quoting from the Scriptures fairly freely this evening, I would remind my noble friend that "Vengeance is mine, sayeth the Lord. I will repay". What of the "innocent" party who, for purely charitable reasons, does not wish to embark on the kind of battle or the kind of accusation which her amendments appear to leave as the only course open?
Lord Moran: I wish to take up briefly the point made by the right reverend Prelate about the message going out to the country from our debates and from our consideration of the Bill. That is very relevant to this series of amendments.
The matter is bound to be seen in simple terms and the fact is that the Bill will be seen as bringing in no-fault divorce on demand. That will inevitably appear to everyone as very much simpler. No one will be to blame. No one will be guilty of anything. One partner will be able to say that he or she wants the marriage dissolved, and that is it. The noble Baroness, Lady

333
Young, put, with great passion and conviction, the case against the abolition of fault. I found what she said thoroughly persuasive.
I am concerned, too, about the position of what one is still just allowed to call the innocent party. There will not be any innocent parties if the Bill goes through because no one will be to blame. But we all know that there are many cases in which one partner or other behaves badly or goes off with someone else and the other party who has done nothing to deserve it is abandoned.
At the moment—it will be even more the case if the Bill goes through—decisions on the custody of the children and the division of the assets of the partnership may be made in such a way that the innocent party feels a sense of gross injustice. For example, if a woman goes off with another man, leaving her husband, and if she is then allotted the home, or half of it, and custody of the children, he will feel that that is grossly unjust because she has been at fault and he has not. I realise that there are many cases in which no one party is to blame, but there are many others known to us all in which quite obviously one partner is principally to blame. It seems to me that that should affect decisions about the custody of the children and the matrimonial home.
Therefore, I would hike to support very strongly what the noble Baroness has said. It seems to me that this matter is one of the central pillars of the Bill. I find the proposition wholly inconsistent with the objectives contained in the first amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, which, as I understood it, were welcomed by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. I cannot see that, if those are the objectives which, I believe, we all agree on, reducing the process of divorce simply to having it on demand is consistent with them.
Baroness Elles: I support very strongly what my noble friend Lady Young has said about the disturbance caused by the kind of message that goes out from this House. It is extremely valuable that we are able to have this broad discussion on this series of amendments so that we might at some stage of the Bill find a point at which we can meet. So far I have. not come across any point which has been raised by my noble friend Lady Young and, if I may call them, her supporters and our Front Bench and those who support the Bill, which has been met.
My noble friend Lord Elton asked what would happen if someone did not want to attack his or her partner for fault, but wanted to have a divorce. At the moment they can have it after two years' separation and consent and there is no problem about that at all. What concerns me specifically is the amendment of my noble friend Lady Young as regards Clause 4(I)(a) where all that one needs is a statement by one or both of the parties that the maker of the statement believes that the marriage has broken down. How does one prove what the word "believes" means in that particular case? How does that show that this House supports the institution of marriage unless one is thinking of consecutive or serial polygamy? It is no support for marriage to think that someone can go along and make a statement saying, "I
334
believe that the marriage has irretrievably broken down. We now have one year in which possibly to mediate or not, because it is voluntary. We have one year in which to discuss the problems such as the children, financial support, property and so on". They are all lumped together in a rather indigestible mess. In that situation one expects the poor woman or man who is left at home to agree within the year.
I wonder if anyone in this House really knows how people live in their homes. Can one believe that for one year they are going to sit at the kitchen table with a cup of tea wondering how they are going to reflect and consider their future at the end of one year of marriage? It is totally unrealistic. I simply do not see how people living in the real world can go through this appalling performance, with the person who has just left or who possibly is still living in the house or the flat, saying, "By the way, last week I signed a statement to say that I thought that our marriage had broken down". The other spouse is left sitting there reflecting and considering what the hell they are going to do in order to get out of it because they want to carry on with the marriage and the home. They want to keep the children at home and lead a decent marital life.
I do not know what the right solution is to this problem. But I am absolutely convinced that the clauses in this Bill that we have discussed so far are totally unrealistic. They do not support the institution of marriage in the way that I regard marriage and, as, I believe, many of my noble friends do. If we do not accept the amendment of my noble friend Lady Young I very much hope that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor will consider discussing with us suitable amendments, which will support the kinds of ideas that a vast number of people in this House believe in.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I spoke earlier, and other people have certainly agreed, about sending wrong messages from this House, from Parliament and indeed from the Church. We have to he very careful about the messages we send out. Let us think of the message that we are sending out to people who are about to be married. They want to consider it very seriously. They recognise it as a big step. At the moment, of course, because of the pain and the blame, they realise that to get out of the marriage may be rather difficult. What we are now saying to them is, "Go ahead; get married. Do not give it another thought because after a year, if you do not like it, you can do exactly what you like. It does not matter about the other partner or the person whom you promised to love, honour and obey. After a year you will simply be able to go to court and give notice that in your view the marriage has irretrievably broken down".
Is that really the message that we want to send out? Quite frankly, I would not have thought so because I believe that the married family is the building block and the rock of our society. Members of the Committee may think that strange coming from this side of the Chamber. I hope that many of my other colleagues believe that, but some of their speeches do not seem to indicate it. I believe that very much

335
indeed and that is why I am concerned that we do the right thing in this Bill and that we do not send the wrong messages to people, particularly the young.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford mentioned pain, blame and shame again. He said that we see it in our present marriages. Yes, we do, and often people are deterred from going off, perhaps on a whim, and deciding to get divorced because they have society to answer to. That very often saves a marriage and we ought to be concerned with saving marriages. If we make people think not once, but twice and many more times about going in for divorce and for actions which might lead to divorce, I believe that we shall be doing people generally and the nation a great deal of good.
As the noble Lord, Lord Moran, asked, what about the person who does not want to get divorced? Marriage is not some sort of hire purchase agreement; it is a contract of love and respect between people. Therefore, there are two people to be considered and not just one. In anything that we do we cannot just allow the person who believes that the marriage has irretrievably broken down to have the first word, the last word and every word about it. We have to take these matters into consideration and that is why I believe that the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, are essential to this Bill. I sincerely hope that in due course we can come to some accommodation to see that the concerns which she and other people have are addressed.
9 p.m.
Baroness Platt of Writtle: In the media this Bill is referred to as the "No Fault Divorce Bill". To me, that seems a total contradiction in terms. In both party's minds there will be a catalogue of faults by the other partner. Very often—but not always—a divorce is a result of faults on both sides. As has been said this evening, sometimes more blame rests with one side than the other. It seems to me that what is being talked about in this Bill is the non-allocation of blame on either side. That may help mediation in the making of proper arrangements for the future of those involved. What worries me is the message going out from this Committee to those entering marriage who can now feel, "It won't be my fault if it fails". Therefore, I support the amendment which continues to recognise the concept of fault on one or both sides.
Like my noble friend Lady Young, I am concerned about the stability of marriage, the welfare pf a partner who above all desires the continuation of the marriage and seeks reconciliation, and the continuing welfare of the children which, to my mind, depends on the involvement of both parents. I hope that my noble and learned friend will be able to accept either this amendment or one like it, as my noble friend suggests, and perhaps stick to the present five-year period apart where we are talking of a unilateral situation. I therefore support my noble friend strongly.
The Earl of Onslow: Brighton, Reno, the Life Guards and Edith Summerskill. When the 1969 Bill came about, there was not going to be any attribution of
336
blame until the intervention of the late Edith Summerskill who, as noble Lords will remember, was a seriously formidable lady. Her only rival in modern times is the noble and blessed Baroness, Lady Seear. I mean that as a compliment. Edith Summerskill said that if we did not allow the addition of adultery as a ground for divorce, that Bill would be a Lothario's charter. So an element of blame crept into the present divorce law which we all agree is unsatisfactory.
Brighton used to be the place to which people went to sit in rather uncomfortable hotel suites with a rather squalid woman so that somebody could come in with a camera and take a photograph. That was regarded as adultery. It was collusion, but it was called a divorce by consent until Parliament perfectly rightly realised that it was a very silly way to behave.
In Reno, whether you liked it or not, after three weeks' residence you could get a divorce. That is how my mother-in-law got a divorce from my father-in-law. That was divorce by consent. They had grown apart. The marriage just went wrong.
I do not know that we shall get anywhere by allowing "fault" in the law. We shall not make any more marriages stick together. Like my noble friend Lady Young, I am extremely happily married. How 'er indoors has put up with me for all these long years, I do not have the faintest idea but, bless her cotton socks, she has. In a way, therefore, it is easy for me to take this view.
Perhaps I may further suggest my Life Guards story to your Lordships. It is very similar to a story told by my noble friend Lady Young. The son of a friend of mine was a serving officer. He came back from manoeuvres to find a note on the table saying, "I'm leaving and I've taken my child with me". The child was aged nine months and they had been married for 15 months. There is no doubt at all that the lady concerned—the use of the word "lady" may be a mistake—was not a very nice lady, but we cannot legislate for the variety of fault. Mary Kenny put this point in a very good article in which she said that this Bill will allow a 50 year-old man to run off with a dolly bird; or a lady who suddenly decides to do a women's studies course at York to run off with a waitress. That is because no concept of fault is involved.
However, the vast majority of marriages do not break up in that way. I read of a case recently in the newspapers. A lady—again, perhaps that is not necessarily the right word—left her husband and ran off with somebody else simply because she was driven mad by him blowing his nose on linen handkerchiefs. She could not stand the snot in the laundry basket in the morning and was finally pushed into committing adultery. That is what happens with human beings.
My noble and learned friend on the Front Bench is trying to say that, human nature being what it is, marriage split-ups and divorce are inevitable and that what we must try to do is to make divorce harder—I genuinely think that he is doing that—and then, if divorce has to happen, to make it not easier but less painful. That seems to me to be a thoroughly civilised approach.

337
The Norman Church was prayed in aid by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. It had ecclesiastical laws on divorce which were eventually found to be bad. The Roman Church has some very odd laws on divorce and the Papacy has been up to some serious chicanery on the subject. We then had divorce by Parliament. I believe that there were 100 or so in about 100 years. Then we had the divorce legislation of 1869 which proved to be very unfair to women, so A.P. Herbert introduced a divorce law which produced the Brighton syndrome. We then had the 1969 divorce law which produced the Edith Summerskill syndrome.
This is a horrid subject. Marriage break-up is horrid, but I genuinely believe that my noble and learned friend is trying to make the law more humane and more civilised. He is not saying that marriage is a bad thing. To pretend that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor with his high moral background will send out the message that marriage is a silly thing is beyond comprehension. What I think my noble and learned friend is trying to do, and I fully support him in this, is to make divorce harder but to make it less painful when it happens. That seems to be the hallmark of a civilised society.
Baroness Faithfull: I must pay tribute to the noble Baroness for her brilliant speech, but I have to say that I do not agree with it. I support my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor. I do not believe that divorce is helped by having a fault clause.
First, no one can say what goes on between two people in their homes—in their bedroom, in their drawing room and in their social life. No one can know what is the fault. The fault is often attributed to the wrong person. I had a strange experience when a man looking terribly unhappy came into the office. I said, "What's up'?" He said, "I had a terrible fight over breakfast with my wife. I don't know whose fault it was, but somehow it seemed to blow up". The telephone went and he went even whiter. He said, "I must go home. My child has been knocked over by a car, and is very ill". He rushed home. He returned to the office in the afternoon. I said, "Well, what happened?" He had arrived home to find the child cycling happily around the streets. He asked what had happened. The wife said, "You were so beastly to me today that I thought that I would give you a fright". He could not bear it, and that night he slept away from home. Things went from bad to worse. None of us can ever say where the fault lies, ad it would be presumptuous of us to do so.
Secondly, the cruelty caused to children by an adversarial divorce is appalling. A child came to my office one day with tears streaming down his face. I said, "Robert, what is the matter?" He said, "They say my dad is a cad. I love my dad, and he is not a cad". What had happened? The husband had left the wife, temporarily as it turned out. It could be said that it was his fault, but who is to know whether it was his fault.
I look at the future. I take the point made by my noble friend Lord Onslow. First, we cannot judge whose fault it is; and, secondly, we have to look at the present and the future. If there is an adversarial system where the wife has her solicitor and the husband has his solicitor
338
in court, and neither will give way, nothing will give way until they battle and fight it out. There is then acrimony and aggro between them. 'There will be no hope of ever helping that couple to come together. That is sad.
Divorce is wrong for children. Equally, many children suffer if they are in a home where there is battling going on all the time. What one has to do if the divorce is going through, and I have had to do it on many occasions, is to make it as easy as possible for the children. If parents go for mediation and can talk about the matter in a non-adversarial way, and a non-battling way, and not in a "I am going to win and you can jolly well go down" way, then it will be possible for the child to have a relationship with both the mother and the father in the future.
If we have the adversarial court system, children pick it up. With the access arrangements after the divorce, one or either, or both parents, lets the children go to the other parent with a great deal of animosity and anger. Also, human nature being what it is, one parent puts the child against the other parent. If a divorce goes through in a seemly, dignified, and, as my noble friend Lord Onslow said, a civilised way, there is more hope of the children having a good relationship with both mother and father in the years ahead.
I understand the point made by my noble friend Lady Young, that we may be sending out the wrong message. Are we sending out the wrong message? The divorce will take place anyway. We should surely see to it that the children do not suffer arid that there is no animosity. If one is talking about the Church, and I belong to the Church of England, there is such a thing as forgiveness.
Lord Phillimore: Perhaps I may add a few observations as a practising barrister, practising in the field of family law like the noble Lord, Lord Meston. In the context of the Bill it is important to remember, first, that it is a divorce reform Bill and, secondly, the reality of the law and practice at present. As has already been observed, 75 per cent. of divorces are based on behaviour.
The statistic of 32 per cent. was referred to but perhaps that does not reflect the practice that the decree absolute is often delayed until after completion of the financial relief proceedings. Be that as it may, the vast majority of divorces are on the basis of behaviour and adultery. Only a handful of defended divorces take place and very few of those are successfully defended. It is a sterile exercise. As was said by my noble friend Lady Faithfull, it is a traumatic experience for the children.
The present existence of fault in the law does not make it more difficult in practice to obtain a divorce. It exists on paper but in practice it serves little effect to restrain a divorce. As the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, said at the beginning of the debate, given a fair wind an undefended divorce can take place within three to four months. The fact that it does not is because the decree absolute is often delayed, as I said earlier.
Therefore, the fault serves only to Increase bitterness and acrimony. I understand that the purpose of the Bill is to reduce that and to make the position easier in

339
particular for the benefit of the children and therefore of society as a whole. In addition, the purpose of the Bill is to give time for reflection. That may save some divorces but it is putting the matter upside down to suggest that a divorce reform Bill could possibly improve the chances of marriages being saved, other than in some cases.
Another consequence of a defended divorce under the present law is the increased expense to the considerable detriment of the family and children. I suggest that the message of the Bill is to give an opportunity for reflection, a greater ease of resolution of all the difficulties which couples face on divorce, which may lead to some marriages being saved, and, above all, less trauma for the children.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: When I listened to the noble Baroness, Lady Young, on her strictures on the clever, I was reminded of the late distinguished Iain Macleod, who is remembered by Members in all parts of the Chamber and Parliament. The most severe criticism that could be made of him was that he was too clever by half. As I understood the noble Baroness, that was directed at the noble and learned Lord in putting forward a Bill to which she can find no good answers but she doubts is right. I accept that there is in this area no perfect system. One must look to do the best that one can in an imperfect world. It would be nice if everyone took correct decisions and prevented bad things happening, but that is not the way of the world.
I found a central difficulty in following the noble Baroness when she maintained that divorce should be exclusively fault-based. I found the contribution of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford compelling. Does that mean that there is to be a right to divorce for fault, for adultery, for unreasonable behaviour, regardless of whether there has been irretrievable breakdown? Does that mean that if fault is established there is a right to a divorce without any need for a year's reflection and consideration without any need for mediation? The noble Lord, Lord Ashbourne, said, "No fault, no divorce". I ask, to what sensible purpose if the marriage has truly broken down?
I can express myself on this important issue very briefly. When a marriage breaks down, the courts should recognise that fact and deal with the consequences in a way which minimises acrimony in the interests of the parties and of any children. It can make no sense at all to compel parties to remain married if the marriage is dead because, first, that cannot be done in a free society. The disgruntled partner will simply up and leave, start a new relationship and have more children who are innocent and just as entitled to be brought up by married parents as are the children of the first marriage.
Even if people who are determined to part could be compelled to remain together—in fact, it is not possible—it would harm the children because they would be brought up in a loveless home and be denied the advantage of any happy parent. I daresay that I could agree with the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of
340
Oxford who said that there are some cases where, no doubt, it could be demonstrated that fault is all one way, but I should have thought that that would be a very rare case. I believe fault to be a very clumsy instrument with which to dissect a failed marriage. It must be in the rarest case that the breakdown is the exclusive responsibility of one party.
Let us take, for example, adultery. The wife refuses sexual intercourse and the husband goes elsewhere. I am not sanctioning adultery. But can it be said that the husband is exclusively to blame? Further, let us take violence. The husband hits the wife. I do not sanction violence, but the husband does so because the wife who is more articulate taunts and humiliates him. No one is exclusively to blame.
I was much impressed by the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull. A fault-based system leads to protracted litigation. It is the adversarial system which, apart from being expensive in terms of public funds and in court time, will also increase acrimony to the detriment of the children. The children may feel compelled to take one side or the other. I could not agree more with the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, that to eliminate a fault-based system of divorce would lead to a much better prospect of the children at the end of the day having a good relationship with both parents.
If divorce is made more difficult, the consequences will be that the rate of illegitimacy will rise. In my view—and, I believe, in the view of the overwhelming majority of my colleagues—the Bill, on the whole, subject to some improvements that can be made to it by way of amendment, gets the balance right.
Lord Meston: I agree with everything just said by the noble Lord, Lord Irvine. Members of the Committee should think long and hard before introducing fault into the Bill. Perhaps those who should think most about it are those who were inclined to support the first amendment moved today by the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, which sought to introduce into the Bill a provision,
"to minimise the bitterness and hostility between the parties and reduce the trauma for the children".
There is no doubt that, in practice, allegations of fault at the time of divorce can and do raise the temperature between the estranged couple and inevitably make the prospects of reconciliation, and of their future co-operation, that much more difficult and unlikely. It seems to me that the Bill has the great merit of removing that particular source of heat, replacing it with sources of light—harsh light under which the parties are required to face the realities of what they are doing and what they may face in the future.
I understand and respect the arguments put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, although I do not agree with them. Under the existing law, three of the five factual bases upon which a divorce can be granted are dependent upon allegations of fault. The existing law teaches us what those who support the noble Baroness must consider; namely, that there are problems of proof. For example, how in practice does one prove fault?
I am a nuts and bolts lawyer like the noble Lord, Lord Phillimore. We see divorce cases day in, day out

341
and the vast majority of those are undefended divorces, as indeed will be divorces under the present Bill before the Committee. They will depend upon documentary proof. Under the existing system that involves a petition supported later by an affidavit by the petitioner confirming the allegations made. As the Law Commission accurately stated, the system still allows, even encourages the parties to lie, or at least to exaggerate in order to get what they want. The bogus adultery cases of the past may have all but disappeared but their modern equivalents are the flimsy behaviour petition, or the pretence that the parties have been living apart for a full two years.
In considering whether it is desirable to continue to have fault-based grounds for divorce, the Committee must consider whether., and if so how, the defects of the existing system can be improved. I suggest it is highly unlikely that better ways of establishing fault to the true satisfaction of a court can be devolved except at great expense. As the noble Lords, Lord Phillimore and Lord Irvine of Lairg, said, if the law is to continue to allow allegations of fault to be made, in fairness the law has to allow allegations of fault to be disputed and to be defended in court at the expense of the parties or at the expense of the taxpayer, and, as the noble Lord, Lord Phillimore, and the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, said, to the detriment of the parties' funds and to the detriment of their children.
One other matter perhaps needs to be emphasised and it arises out of a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Moran. In removing fault as a basis of divorce one is not removing the possibility of introducing allegations of misconduct as relevant consideration when the finances come to be considered. As the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor stated at an earlier stage in our debate this afternoon, the Bill does not disturb the existing guidelines in the Matrimonial Causes Act for consideration of financial matters. One of those guidelines involves consideration by the court of conduct by one of the parties if it is inequitable to disregard it. In practice of course it is only in fairly extreme cases that conduct is considered relevant in financial matters. It is difficult for the court to quantify misconduct. For that perfectly sensible and pragmatic reason, in the vast majority of cases the court does not attempt to do so. I repeat that the Committee should think hard about the practical consequences of introducing fault into the Bill as it is presently framed.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: At the risk of egotism I am impelled to intervene to give my testimony as a matrimonial judge for 11 years that it is simply untrue to say that in every case, or even in a significant number of cases, it is six of one or half a dozen of the other. There were a number of cases where one felt that, but it was a great minority of cases. That is not only my own testimony; it was the testimony of David Morris in the book from which if cited earlier, borne out by my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham.
It would be adding cruelty to injustice if when a woman is cast away and unilaterally repudiated one was to say that it must be partly her own fault. That would be a monstrous cruelty.
342
The noble Lord, Lord Meston, has just asked how one proves fault. The answer is that it has been proved for 1,100 years in the matrimonial courts. It is still proved in the Church courts, which still take cognisance of the misdemeanours and faults of the clergy. No doubt in the forum internum the sin is lust, but in the courts what is investigated is incontinence. There was a case of that only last year. The Church does not say that the ministry has irretrievably broken down, still less does it allow for the parochial church council to file a notice in the diocesan office saying that in its view the ministry has irretrievably broken down. As it has always done, the court investigates fault. That is the role of the law generally in social control and social influence. If one deprives the law of that, one demoralises the law.
Listening to the optimistic speeches of the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford and the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, as to the result of this Bill, those of us who lived through the 1969 Bill must have had memories startlingly evoked. There was the same crass optimism, the same foolish hope, that all would be better. It was called a "kiss and make-up" Bill. Yet the first effect was that divorces increased by 44 per cent., and the number of children affected therefore also increased by 44 per cent. However, that was not temporary. The number of divorces continued to increase, until today there are two and a half times as many divorces and two and a half times as many children are affected as before 1969.
I cannot hear what the noble Lord says, but of course I shall give way to him.
Lord Elton: I shall wait for the noble and learned Lord to put the instrument to his ear. I wondered whether he would show how the effect he describes was propter hoc and not post hoc.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: All I can do is look at the figures and ask what happened in 1970 to cause a 44 per cent. increase. If there had been a gradual upturn the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Elton, would be justified. However, there was a sudden jump, and the increase was maintained. The only sensible course is to ask what happened that was likely to cause the 44 per cent. increase. It is unlikely to have been only a fortuitous result of the passing of the 1969 Act.
The Earl of Onslow: Will my noble and learned friend give way briefly? Does he suggest that if we went back to the 1935 divorce legislation, the numbers of divorces would fall to what they were in 1969? And would human happiness be consequently increased in any way whatsoever?
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: As I feared, I did not hear what the noble Earl said. However, as I respect what he says in general, I shall certainly read his comment tomorrow. If it calls for a letter, I shall write to him.
We would be very foolish if we were again to repeat the optimism that was expressed in 1969. Is this a kiss and make up Bill? Is this a kiss and break up Bill? That seems to be the best that can be hoped for: that the break up will be less acrimonious.

343
The noble Lord, Lord Meston, did not explain why allegations of fault at the stage of mediation, and investigation of property rights, financial rights, and sometimes custody, were in any way less damaging to the children than allegations of fault at the time of the divorce. Of course they are equally damaging if they are going to be damaging.
I do not want to trespass on my next amendment, but parents can quarrel in front of their children, and quarrel damagingly. On the other hand, they can be solicitous, for all their differences, as regards the effect upon the children.
There is abundant evidence that it is the break up of the marriage, the separation, which causes the damage. In a moving speech at Second Reading, the noble Baroness, Lady Young, referred to that research. It is no use our saying, "We shall make things easier for the children". We may make it easier in certain cases, but every time there is a surge in divorce more children will be at risk.
Baroness Seear: With all respect to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, we cannot let him get away with the argument that the increase in divorce is necessarily the result of previous divorce legislation. After all, until relatively recently women had no means of earning a living if their marriage broke up. I wonder how much the increase in divorce is a result of the fact that women now have a degree of economic independence. I wonder also how many marriages broke before but they did not break to the outside world because the woman had no option as to what to do if she left the home.
Some noble Lords may remember Herbert Baker; I believe that he was a judge of the Family Division. He said that it was not just enough to know who threw the rice pudding; one had to know how the rice pudding was cooked.
Finally, we must be careful regarding the use of the language that we use. Some words have implications which can lead to quite wrong conclusions. We talk about the contract of marriage. Of course there are legal elements to that contract. But one thing that you cannot contract to do is to supply an acceptable amount of love. Therefore, to use the word "contract" in connection with a relationship of which the whole heart and centre is love seems to me a most misleading use of language.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: I wish to make two separate points. Although I greatly respect the conviction of the noble Baroness, Lady Young, and all who support her, I was the chairman of the Legal Aid Advisory Committee for six years. At that time people were beginning to look again at the whole problem of divorce. An idea gradually emerged and it seems to me that we cannot just write if off as an interesting technical idea. It was that there had to be a period of thought, with mediation not just conciliation. Many people do not want to be conciliated but they need to be required to accept the opportunity to sit and think about the consequences that would follow from divorce. We ought not to disregard the immense variety of support for that
344
from scientific research and from the experience of conciliation groups and practitioners. It would be wrong to ignore that.
My other relevant experience is that, as head of an Oxford college, sadly I had to see the effects of divorce on undergraduates. I therefore understand clearly how terrible it is. However, I still feel that the Bill is making a positive effort to enable people to look at the facts, consider what the consequences will be and take time. The difference between arguing privately in the mediation process and sorting it out and being adversarial in court is great. In the court you are in public, you are committing yourself and taking stands that become set in stone.
When we worry about the message that we send to the country, we should be worrying about what the Bill will do. It seems to me that there is everything to be said for trying to give people a chance to stop and think clearly. The noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, used the comparison about creating light rather than heat. Therefore, on those two counts, I strongly support the Bill.
Earl Russell: The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, and I have many times appeared on the same side of an argument with great pleasure, and, I hope, with great profit. I am sorry that on this occasion we appear on opposite sides but I am sure that the noble and learned Lord will understand that there is a certain built-in paradox in the notion of a pair of individualists. However, that is what we are and we have always recognised it.
My noble friend Lady Seear saved me a little time by making the first point I had wished to make. It is vital. We do not want to preserve marriage by turning it into a prison. The economic independence of women is a fact and we must all welcome it. But we must recognise that it has consequences.
The noble Baroness, Lady Young, said in her speech a long time ago now that she did not understand why we were sitting here at all, if the law did not influence behaviour. Of course the law influences behaviour, but it influences rational behaviour a great deal more than irrational behaviour. Love—thank God!—is irrational behaviour. It would not be nearly so tough under pressure if it were not. As the story of Romeo and Juliet and hundreds of others illustrate, love is an area in which people are rather counter-suggestible. It is more difficult to influence them through the law than it is in some other fields.
I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Habgood, who spoke so well on the subject at Second Reading, is unable to he here. He argued first the difficulty of identifying the fault. Clearly, normally there is fault. The fault may be in having made the marriage in the first place or it may be in something that we shall never discover. No one knows everything that passes between a married couple in private. Very often the worst and cruellest faults in marriage can lie in inaction rather than action.
Perhaps I may be forgiven a reminiscence. I have not forgotten an incident when I had been married a couple of months. We had been out to dinner, and my wife got

345
food poisoning and spent most of the rest of the evening being violently sick. It somehow turned me over inside to find how pathetically grateful she was that I was not repelled by that experience. Had I been repelled, I think that that would have been a fault capable of contributing to the first stages of a rot that dissolves a marriage. However, I do not think that any court in the land could ever have pinned that down to me. I should have made a perfectly rational, reasonable sounding defence and I do not know whether anybody would have penetrated it. But I think I should have known at bottom that I was wrong.
It is suggested that somebody who has been abandoned is insulted by being told: "It must have been partly your fault." Nobody is proposing to tell anybody that it must have been anybody's fault. In the end, my first position is that, although I believe there is fault there, we cannot know where the fault lies.
My second point is that the fault, if we can find it, may not be anything that is a matrimonial offence at all. I take one actual incident. A person was driving up to a traffic light on an uphill slope and did not see until much too late that it was red, so he ran into the back of the car in front and did a good deal of damage. Being a quick thinker and unscrupulous, he leapt out of the car, ran up to the driver of the car in front and said, "You mustn't let your car slip downhill at a traffic light." The wife of the man in front said, "How often must I tell you not to do that, dear?" That, in my book, was a fault. It was a withdrawal of trust such as might put a rot inside a marriage. But it would not be regarded, in any classification I can imagine, as a matrimonial offence.
The noble Baroness, Lady Young, dwelt on the tragedy of the older woman dumped for a dolly bird. It is a tragedy. I think none of us would maintain otherwise. What I do not understand is how that woman is one wit better off for the preservation of a legal shell of a marriage in which her husband will not live again. I do not understand what she gets out of it.
The noble Lord, Lord Ashbourne, was also much concerned at the notion that a marriage could break up because of the withdrawal of the commitment of one partner. I should like to ask realistically as distinct from legally: has it ever been otherwise? In the 17th century, when a husband got tired of his wife, he used to say that he had gone to New England. I am not at all convinced that all of those men had gone to New England. Indeed, some of them were later proved not to have gone to New England. I cannot see what useful purpose is served by legally preserving the fiction that there is a marriage when there is no relationship between the parties.
Also, if we are to have fault, I do not understand why this group of amendments confines itself to adultery. Why not cruelty? That is a very much more obvious fault and often a great deal easier to prove? And that is important.
I first learnt about fault-based divorce when I was a child of divorcing parents at the age of 11. As the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, said, it was an intensely painful experience. But what was painful was the matrimonial breakdown, not the divorce. The divorce,
346
when it ultimately came, represented a considerable diminution of the pain which had been experienced while the conflict was in progress.
What was beyond my comprehension at the age of 11 was the notion of punishment inherent in fault. In a divorce based on desertion, it was essential for the deserted party to pretend that he (or she) wanted the other party to return. If one party did not want the other to come back, there could be no divorce. So if both parties wanted a divorce, they could not have one. If both parties wanted to be apart, they lad, in law, to be together. I could not get my childish mind around that. My adult mind cannot do any better.
I must apologise to my noble friend Lord Meston in that I was even more horrified when I discovered the existence of the office of—as it was then—King's proctor, to which he is now counsel, and found out that it was necessary to go around investigating to see whether one could prove collusion. It was necessary to see whether one could prove that both parties wanted the divorce because, if they both wanted it, they could not have it. It was not a punishment to give the parties a divorce but a punishment to withhold the divorce.
At the beginning, I said that marriage is not a form of imprisonment. I say it again.
The Lord Chancellor: It seems some little time since my noble friend moved her amendment. We have had a fairly wide-ranging debate and it is not for me to go over all the ground that has been covered.
I should like to put some matters to my noble friend about how she anticipates that the system that she proposes will work. I understand from Amendment No. 4 that the process is to be initiated by whoever is initiating the process, the wife or the husband, already committing themselves to the view that the behaviour of one or both parties is destructive of their marriage and that they are irreconcilable. That seems to be taken a little further with Amendment No. 18 to Clause 4.
There is then Amendment No. 23 which inserts into Clause 4 a new subsection (1A). The requirements there proposed are that:
"(a) the other party ('the respondent') has committed adultery and the petitioner finds it intolerable to live with the respondent"—
that has to be proved at the end of some period—and,
"(b) the respondent has behaved in such a way that the petitioner cannot reasonably be expected to live with the respondent: or
"(c) the parties to the marriage have lived apart for a continuous period of at least five years immediately preceding the presentation of the statement".
That last paragraph (c) is not based on conduct of any kind except a separation. So that is not a proposal for a fault-based divorce. A mixed proposal is being put forward.
My noble friend said that she agreed with the abolition of the "quickie divorce". I do not feel that "quickie divorce" is a precise term of art. What I mean by "quickie divorce" is a divorce which proceeds more quickly than it would if it were based other than on fault. I am not clear what my noble friend is proposing in that connection. If the system proposed in the three

347
amendments is to operate, the result will be that one can obtain a divorce more quickly by reference to fault than one can without it. That is the essential of the quickie divorce.
I shall answer the questions raised by my noble friend Lord Ashbourne in a moment. The essential point that makes it more difficult to say that fault in some way supports marriage is if one has a divorce that operates more quickly where there is fault and gives the benefit of the right to remarry to the so-called guilty party more quickly than would happen in the event of there being no fault. I do not understand—no doubt somebody will explain to me—how that helps in showing that fault is something blameworthy.
Next I want to turn to what fault is. My noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale spoke of 1,100 years of justiciability of fault in the ecclesiastical and civil courts. But conduct has enlarged somewhat over that 1,100 years; it did not stand still. My experience, which is now becoming somewhat outdated but nevertheless is very much in my mind, is that it was much easier to make allegations of unreasonable conduct in recent times than it was to make allegations of cruelty in times past. Those who practise in the present day in this area of the law recognise, as I have seen recognised in articles, that the present fault law, including as it does unreasonable conduct, is a way of permitting the obtaining of divorce by consent in less than two years.
Some people will say, and I have read articles stating it, that hypocrisy of that kind must be accommodated. I may be wrong, but I do not believe that hypocrisy in legislation and the way it operates is a good message for young people. The law should be straightforward in this area and as clear and consistent as possible.
Much has been said about the increase in the number of divorces over the years since 1969. If one looks, one will find that the increase in the number of fault-based divorces has been at least as great as other based divorces. There is no evidence in the figures—I am subject to correction by anyone who is able to bring it forward—that relying on fault is in some way a restraining factor on the incidence of-divorce.
I shall now face the challenge put before me by the noble Lord, Lord Moran, to test the amendment by reference to the opening amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Stallard. Before I do so, perhaps I can give the figures in relation to quickie divorces. The figures for 1993, which I have had analysed, show that around one-third (52,000) take under six months and around 78,000 take between six months and one year. Three-quarters take less than one year. I understand that the median period is six months.
I come to testing the amendments by reference to the first amendment and agree that that is a good way of looking at it. Paragraph (a) states:
"to support the institution of marriage".
The amendments do not have any specific claim to do that. It was made plain, and I entirely support that point of view, that marriage involves a continuing commitment by two parties, the one to the other, based
348
on mutual love and respect. In its very nature it cannot continue to operate as a true marriage except for so long as that commitment continues. The matrimonial vow, as I understand it—I shall be corrected by those who know more about this than I—is essentially to continue that commitment for so long as both live. It is a breach of that commitment by either to discontinue the commitment. But the commitment to marriage essentially must be a joint commitment of two parties. You cannot have a continuing marriage in which one party only retains the commitment. The marriage is then dead. However sad that is, it is a fact. One has to take that point into account. I do not believe for a minute that it supports the institution of marriage to seek to keep in place a marriage which is no longer a marriage.
Paragraph (b) states:
"to ensure that all practicable steps with a view to preventing the irretrievable breakdown of marriage are taken".
One of my fundamental points about the kind of approach that is involved in the amendments of my noble friend Lady Young is that the allegation about the irretrievable breakdown of a marriage or the irreconcilable nature of the conduct of the parties is made at the beginning of the process and therefore the opportunity for steps to be taken at that stage to prevent irretrievable breakdown of the marriage has gone. You have already come to the conclusion, as an essential step for the starting of the procedure, that the marriage has already broken down.
One of the most important aspects of this Bill, and one which I believe is very much a matter of consequence, is the opportunity, even at the late stage when someone is contemplating divorce, of a period, a genuine period—I think a year—of consideration and reflection. You cannot have such a genuine period if the parties are already committed to a situation in which it is said, "This marriage has already irretrievably broken down". I cannot see—I have thought about this once or twice, as the Committee can imagine—how a fault-based divorce system can accommodate that in any realistic sense. If you are already committed to the view that your marriage has broken down there is no point in waiting a year to see whether it has or of having any procedure in place to help you find out.
Paragraph (c) states:
"to ensure that the parties understand the practical consequences of divorce before taking any irreversible decision".
Exactly the same point applies to that. Fault-based divorce requires that you come to a decision before you start that there has been a fault which is destructive of the marriage. So it is a little late to be told about the consequences after that. I agree that by the time someone is thinking about divorce it is already very late. That is what is behind my idea that we must try to give help earlier if we can. But I do not want to despair or to lose hope, even at that stage, where the court is formally involved. You cannot force people to come for help earlier. But if they have to come to court for some kind of order then at least you have an opportunity, which is an important opportunity and should be taken, for reflection to heal the relationship.

349
Paragraph (d), which is perhaps the most important paragraph of all, states:
"to minimise the bitterness and hostility between the parties and reduce the trauma for the children".
My noble friend Lady Faithfull, with all her experience of these matters, spoke movingly about the effect of divorce on children. Surely—as I explained earlier, this is my motivating reason for bringing this Bill before Parliament—the unnecessary trauma for children in the present system is clear and we should do everything that we possibly can to eliminate it.
I have never suggested, although it has been frequently said that I have—it always makes me wonder if people have to misrepresent one's position in order to knock it down because they are short of arguments for knocking down one's true position—that it is possible to take the pain, shame or blame out of divorce. I do not believe that it is. But what I do believe is that it is possible to avoid introducing unnecessary pain, hostility and trauma into the sad fact of a marriage breakdown. I believe that a system in which one makes allegations, particularly of conduct against the other, is exactly of that character and introduces unnecessary trauma into the situation.
It is for those reasons that I have not found it possible to go down that road. I know and well understand my noble friend Lady Young and her attitude to these matters. I respect her point of view. Indeed, our agreement as regards the first amendment shows that we share the same aims. I should like to know how this system that she proposes will meet the set of requirements that I have suggested.
Baroness Young: We have had a very long debate on this subject. One thing is quite clear. There are very deeply divided but sincerely held opinions about this matter on which we are possibly unlikely to agree. I indicated at the beginning that I was not going to press these amendments. I shall, of course, read very carefully what my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor said because he went into great detail. I would like to take the opportunity to study it.
I admire my noble and learned friend's sincerity on this matter. I am quite certain that he believes sincerely that this Bill will in fact make matters better otherwise he would not have brought it before us at all. He said that he cannot understand why I believe that continuing fault will in any way help in divorces. The point is that it is not that I believe that fault in divorce is going to help anything at all, but that the abolition of fault as a principle is going to have a disastrous effect on all sorts of people long before they get married because they will start off from the wrong place. It is that which I believe is so dangerous in society, but nobody has answered that point.
I am sorry to disagree: with the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford. I disagree profoundly with what, I am sorry to say, is the attitude of the Church. He said that if you have fault you have to have punishment. I was quite interested to hear him say that because normally in this House we do not allow punishment at all. I thought that we believed that that was rather a bad thing in most cases, but I suppose it has now been put
350
up because it is thought that I am not really politically correct. Well, I am not politically correct and I do not pretend to be that, but I do not believe that to be a very good argument. I am not talking about punishment and I have not used that word. I would not want it implied that that is my intention.
I am out to face reality because I believe that is just what this Bill does not do. I have listened very carefully to all the arguments. Indeed, we have a number of lawyers speaking in this debate, but the professional advice is itself contradictory. My noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale speaks with his years of experience as a judge and says that it is. possible to deal with the question of fault in divorce, but others seem to think that it is not possible. Lay people in this situation must make up their own minds on the basis of the evidence that they have. I support very much what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, said on this matter.
I am very sorry to disagree with my noble friend Lady Faithfull, but I do disagree profoundly with what she said—not because I am not deeply concerned about the children of divorces. I am concerned because I have seen too many desperately unhappy children as a result of divorces. However, the question that my noble friend must consider is whether or not there will be more divorces as a result of this Bill and therefore more unhappy children. Of course, I am in support of doing everything that I can to try to help those children—nobody would want otherwise—but the greatest help of all would be to create a framework in which there will be fewer divorces. The real danger is that in this legislation we are creating a world in which there will be more divorces, not fewer.
I realise that there are many faults in the amendments. I do not pretend that they are perfect or that they are the last word. I am quite prepared to take them back and to think again. Amendment No. 4 would permit divorce only on the ground of fault or of behaviour which was destructive of the continuance of the marriage. Amendments Nos. 21 and 23 seek to adapt the present law and to permit divorce where both parties seek it. But where only one party seeks the divorce, the provisions would require one of three possible reasons to be proved: adultery, behaviour or five years' separation. That is a slight variation on what we have now. That amendment needs to be considered with the later amendment to Clause 7 which increases to 18 months the minimum time for all divorces.
If I may say so in support of the amendments, it may well be that both parties to a marriage are at fault or in some way believe themselves to be: incompatible. However, the fact is that in a substantial proportion of cases, the fault lies in the behaviour of one or other of the parties. Indeed, the White Paper acknowledged that at Section 4(4) which stated that the retention of fault received significant support in the consultation process on the Green Paper. So, even those who are experts are clearly divided on this issue.
We have not had an answer to this, but the fact is that the Bill removes all protection for the innocent spouse. As I see it, a husband or wife can simply say that the

351
marriage has irretrievably broken down whether or not the other party wants a divorce. That is where we are. Again, that seems an extraordinarily bad signal to send to young people.
It is late now and I do not intend to go over all the detailed points that have been made. I thank very much all those noble Lords from all parts of the House who have supported me in this series of amendments on fault. It is only right to say that this is not a matter which those of us who feel strongly will allow to drop. I do not intend to press the amendment this evening because if I may say so, using the words of the Bill, perhaps we all need time to "reflect" on what is the right thing to do. I shall certainly reflect on the criticisms that have been made of these amendments and shall consider coming back with different amendments on Report if my noble and learned friend cannot produce amendments that he would find acceptable.
It would be quite wrong at this stage to allow in this legislation on the abolition of fault the pretence that it will make no difference. As we gradually sap and undermine individual responsibility, we do not help young people entering marriage. We do not help marriages which both parties are struggling to make work or where one partner is struggling to make the marriage work in great difficulties. We would simply be encouraging everybody to give up far too easily. I do not think that that is a signal that we should send out at this stage and that is why I stand by the whole question of fault. As I have said, I do not intend to press the amendment, so I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10.15 p.m.
Lord Meston Lord Meston moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 2, line 1, at end insert ("or, in the case of an application for a separation order, the marriage has broken down").
The noble Lord said: I spoke, in part at least, to the amendment at an earlier stage in connection with Amendment No. 2. The purpose of the amendment is to examine why the Bill seeks to assimilate the ground for a divorce order and the ground for a separation order. As I mentioned at an earlier stage, under the existing law it is not necessary to allege or to establish that a marriage has broken down irretrievably if the party concerned seeks only a judicial separation.
The Law Commission suggested that the two forms of relief should now be integrated. That is the one part of the Law Commission report which I find somewhat unconvincing. A separation order is a concept distinct from a divorce order, and it is questionable whether it is necessary or desirable to integrate them as the Bill seeks to do. A large number of people prefer, for personal reasons, to have a separation order. They find it easier, less painful, and sufficient for their requirements. It is therefore unnecessary for them to have to prove now, under the Bill, that the marriage has broken down irretrievably. It should be sufficient to prove that the marriage has broken down. After due
352
formality, they should be enabled to regulate their affairs, or to invite the court to regulate their affairs, as the law presently allows. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: I wish to indicate in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Meston, that in this area the Bill is founded, as he recognised, on the Law Commission's proposal. The possibility of having a distinct basis for separation exists in logic. If all he wants to have is that the marriage has broken down, we would need to know more about the conditions under which that would be thought to be established.
One of the reasons for doing what we have done is to make the basis upon which the orders are made as simple, as clear, and as capable of going out to people as a message as is possible. At the moment at least, I feel that what we have in the Bill is the best solution to that problem. The question that the Law Commission considered more fully is whether we need a separation order at all. For reasons that we have gone into already, I believe that it is desirable to have a separate separation order. It is not necessary to specify further what it does than what is said in the Bill.
If the noble Lord considers that some better function would be served by a separation order distinct from the divorce order in its ground, then I should be glad to know what that would be. It would have the consequence that one could not readily transfer from the separation order to the divorce order without in some way doing some more work to bring one into the ground for the divorce order, I assume.
When talking about a separation order earlier, I may have spoken about the possibility of obtaining one in one year after the marriage. If I said that, it was not what I intended. I intended to say that it was possible to apply for an order within one year. It was not subject to the bar, as is an application for a divorce order. Under this Bill, one cannot obtain the order in less than a year because it takes a year to obtain it. I meant to say that the application can be made. If I did not say that I am sorry, and I take this opportunity to correct the point.
The essential point is that we desire to have one. We desire to make it possible to move from a separation order to a divorce order if the circumstances seem to the parties to make that desirable. If we are to distinguish between the two on grounds we need to know the ground that the noble Lord wishes to suggest for the separation order.
Lord Meston: I am grateful for the response of the noble and learned Lord. The ground that I am proposing is that set out in the amendment; namely, in the case of an application for a separation order, that the marriage has broken down as distinct from the need to prove that the marriage has broken down irretrievably.
I must accept that it is a finely balanced argument. As the Bill recognises, it is desirable that there should be a distinct separation order and I am glad that the Law Commission recommended that, having considered the matter carefully. As I have indicated, it is the position under the existing law that a separation order should not he so difficult to obtain. For that reason I question, and have questioned in the amendment, why it now becomes

353
necessary to prove the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage. It is not a matter on which I wish to detain the Committee at this late hour but I may wish to return to it at a later stage of the Bill. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale Lord Simon of Glaisdale had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 6:
Page 2, line 1, at end insert—
("( ) in the case of a divorce order, there is no child of the family under the age of sixteen;").
The noble and learned Lord said: If Members of the Committee wish it, I am prepared to move this amendment, which is linked with five others. Amendment No. 4 took almost two hours to debate. Amendment No. 6 raises a very important question relating to the welfare of the children of a potentially broken marriage. It makes three proposals alternatively which were not before the Royal Commission on marriage and divorce and, so far as I know, have not been discussed in public since then.
It is now twenty minutes past ten and the Committee has been sitting since three o'clock. Your Lordships are an elderly and unsalaried Chamber which now habitually sits longer hours than the other place whose Members are younger and salaried. If the Committee thinks it fit to embark on the important and controversial questions which arise from this amendment I am reluctantly in the Committee's hands. In my respectful submission, it would be utterly improper.
When we debated the report on the sittings of the House we were assured that we would not be kept late at night. At the moment the House is entirely unrepresentative. As regards this amendment, it is most important that the widest spectrum of views is assembled and I respectfully invite the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, or perhaps my noble and learned friend, to say that enough is more than enough.
Baroness Trumpington: I certainly appreciate the feelings of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. However, it is not in my gift to make such arrangements on the Floor of the House. I have sent a little carrier pigeon off to the usual channels and I
354
suggest that in the meantime the noble and learned Lord speaks to his amendment. We must carry on in some way until word comes back. I am sorry but the noble and learned Lord must carry on for the moment.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I should very much like to follow what the noble and learned Lord said. It is most important that we should listen to what he said. We have been promised that this Chamber would not sit into unearthly hours. Quite frankly, we are now nearing 10.30 at night, and I have to inform Members of the Committee—if they do not already know—that another place rose at 7.30 p.m. this evening.
As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, said, it is a bit much that the other place, which has elected and paid Members, should go home at 7.30 p.m. because they believe that to go on further on a Thursday night is uncivilised, and that we should be expected to stay here after 10.25 p.m. to consider a Bill, bearing in mind that it is a very important and sensitive piece of legislation and also that we have not very much business in this Session and could find an extra day if necessary.
I see that the Government Chief Whip has now arrived in the Chamber. It may well be that it would be better for me to sit down now to see whether we can make progress.
Baroness Trumpington: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

City of London (Approved Premises for Marriage) Bill [H.L.]
Presented, and read a first time.
House adjourned at twenty-seven minutes past ten o'clock.

  Arable Area Payments Scheme
  Arable Area Payments Scheme
  Human Suspected Adverse Reactions to Veterinary Medicines: Report
  Human Suspected Adverse Reactions to Veterinary Medicines: Report
  Women Prisoners: Handcuffing Directive
  Women Prisoners: Handcuffing Directive
  Pensions after Divorce: Assumptions
  Pensions after Divorce: Assumptions
  Marriage: Working Party
  Marriage: Working Party
  UK Air Safety: Regulations
  UK Air Safety: Regulations