Sitting of 23 January 1996

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

    Fraud
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement as to measures which his Department and agencies are taking to reduce social security fraud. [8789]
    The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Peter Lilley): Last July, I announced my new security strategy to give new emphasis to prevention and deterrence of benefit fraud. That involves extra checks on benefit claims, matching of information on the Department's computers and the introduction of benefit payment cards to replace order books and girocheques.
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: I thank my right hon. Friend for that excellent reply. Does he agree that the biggest personal fraud of pension funds was perpetrated by the late Robert Maxwell? Does he further agree that the biggest collective fraud of pension funds would occur if the Labour party ever got its stake on pension fund holders?
    Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend makes a good point. I suppose that the late Robert Maxwell was almost the only socialist Member of Parliament ever to show a personal interest in private pensions, but my hon. Friend is right to sound the alarm bells at any Opposition suggestions that they want to get state hands on our pension schemes. The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) and the Leader of the Labour party recently visited Singapore—the principal difference between whose system and ours is that the state controls pension schemes—because they want to get their hands on our successful private pensions, which are the envy of the rest of Europe.
    Mr. Bradley: We welcome any measures that the Government may introduce effectively to tackle fraud, wherever it may appear in the social security system, but we question why, after 17 years in power, the Government have taken so long to introduce such measures. However, will the Secretary of State clarify exactly what his financial targets are for fraud? There appears to be a contradiction between the Budget Red Book figures and those in his uprating statement. Will he tell us today, therefore, precisely what his annual fraud figures are for 1996–97, 1997–98 and 1998–99?
    Mr. Lilley: My objective, which I spelled out in detail when I published the new anti-fraud strategy in July, was
    128
    to reduce the fraud level by—we believe that this is possible—about 70 per cent. over a five-year period. To spell out a specific year-by-year path is asking a little too much of a Minister at the Dispatch Box. I can remind hon. Members that we have had no positive ideas on how to reduce fraud from the Opposition, who, in the words of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett), have for too long been associated with the freeloader.
    Mr. Batiste: In his initial answer, my right hon. Friend referred to the social security card. What progress is he making with it? What will it consist of? Will it use new technology? What savings does he expect to make against fraud as a consequence of its introduction?
    Mr. Lilley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for welcoming the card. We are in the advanced stages of reaching agreement and of choosing a final winner in relation to the private finance initiative plans to introduce the card. With it, we shall be able virtually to eliminate fraud and abuse of the order book system, which amounts to about £150 million a year. In due course, we hope to make savings in the administration of handling benefit as well.

    Income Support
    Mr. Ashton: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many children under 16 years of age are in families receiving income support; and what proportion of all children this represents. [8790]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Roger Evans): Around 2.98 million children are in families receiving income support, representing 25.5 per cent. of all children under 16 in Great Britain.
    Mr. Ashton: Are those not appalling figures? One in four children are living at that poverty level, never getting to go to a pantomime, never having any decent toys for Christmas, never getting a change of clothes unless they go to jumble sales or Oxfam, and never going on a school trip or holiday. What has happened to the Tory policy of one nation?
    Mr. Evans: Those are disturbing figures. However, if I tell the hon. Gentleman that, of those 2.98 million children, 1.8 million are children of lone parents, he might realise the fundamental social problem. The important point is that, since 1992, we have enabled 200,000 lone parents to move off income support and on to family credit, gaining, on average, £30 a week. With our child care disregard provisions, which have been announced, that trend should be accelerated.
    Mr. Harry Greenway: Will my hon. Friend confirm that payments to under-16s in that category are sufficient to ensure a proper and reasonable life style? Will he further confirm that they will not be victimised in the way that they would be if Labour policy on choice in schools has its way?
    Mr. Evans: Parental choice in schools, which Conservative Members—if not all hon. Members—strongly support, can lead to additional expense. On the main point of my hon. Friend's question, a judgment must

    129
    be made on the levels of income support that the Government believe to be appropriate in all the circumstances, including those that he adumbrated.
    Mr. Wicks: Does the Minister agree that, under Beveridge, income support was intended to provide a safety net in the social security system? If one in four children are now dependent on income support, does that not show the failure of Government policy? Have not the Government turned what was once a proud welfare state into an expensive and complex dependency state?
    Mr. Evans: No. The fact that income support provided a safety net on a scale undreamed of by the late Sir William Beveridge is a mark of the development of welfare principles in changing social conditions. As I said, 1.8 million—two thirds—of the 2.98 million children referred to in my main answer are the children of lone parents. That is a very real social problem. The way to tackle it is to provide incentives to work, which is what we are doing through family credit.

    Fraud
    Lady Olga Maitland: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what priority has been given to tackling fraud in his social security reforms. [8791]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Oliver Heald): The fight against fraud is a top priority. Last year, the crackdown on benefit fraud saved a record £717.6 million from fraud detected and stopped. We are well on the way this year to achieving another record-breaking amount.
    Lady Olga Maitland: I thank my hon. Friend for his determined effort to crack down on cheating, because cheating is nothing other than stealing. Will he confirm that, among other measures, the Department plans to visit 1 million homes to check that applications are correct? Will he further confirm that, last year, under that system, there were 9,500 prosecutions, with a 95 per cent. conviction rate being achieved? Is that not a success?
    Mr. Heald: I confirm the information provided by my hon. Friend. However, there will be not only the 1 million additional visits, but the bar code scanner, data matching, hotlines, data cleansing, the Post Office reward scheme and the new benefit payment card, all of which will provide a tough range of measures to deal with benefit fraud.
    Mr. Frank Field: I congratulate the Government on slowly trying to get to grips with the major issue of social security fraud. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] The operative word was "slowly", but I am grateful for the support of Conservative Members.
    Why was it that, when the Government published their report on housing benefit fraud last week, the Department seemed to emphasise fraud by claimants, when most housing benefit fraud is by landlords? Why did the report estimate lost taxpayers' revenue at £1 million when evidence before the Select Committee—which the Treasury Bench is following—estimated it at £2 billion?
    Mr. Heald: The housing benefit review published last week was the most detailed study ever of housing benefit
    130
    fraud, dealing with more than 5,000 cases and involving 52 local authorities. We believe that the estimate of £1 billion for housing benefit fraud is accurate, although clearly the figure may be higher in some areas and lower in others.
    The review called for tough measures to deal with fraud, and that is why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced last week £10 million of challenge funding for local authorities, tough new incentives for local authorities to crack down on fraud and a new housing benefit central register to stop people claiming in one area and then going to another area and claiming again. We shall also be working with the Audit Commission to toughen up the procedures for claiming housing benefit so that we have a system that pays the right amount to the right person at the right time.
    Mr. Nicholls: Was there not also a serious social security fraud when the Labour party suggested that the Singaporean way of administering pensions was in some way preferable to ours? Will my hon. Friend remind the House of the difference between the two schemes?
    Mr. Heald: Using false representations to obtain benefits is an offence, but that does not apply to Labour politicians making false representations to claim votes. One of my right hon. Friend's initiatives to crack down on fraud is data matching, or comparing one claim against another. That is why we believe that it is instructive to look at the claims made by the leader of the Labour party and compare them with what people such as John Monks and the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) have said. Stakeholding means forcing people to take out a second state pension and putting the funds in the hands of the trade unions. We all know that the rate of return from the Singapore scheme—a stateholding scheme—is 2 per cent. over inflation, whereas the rate of return since 1980 of the British pension funds, which administer our private schemes and have £600 billion-worth of assets, is 10 per cent. over inflation.
    Mr. Skinner: More than two years ago, the Public Accounts Committee—chaired by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon)—investigated fraud by employers. Is the Minister aware that the Committee estimated that about £300 million was lost each year because employers were refusing to hand over their employees' national insurance contributions and taxes? In my constituency, a young lad who lost his fingers while working a wood-cutting machine could not claim a single penny piece, because his employer had not handed over his national insurance. As it is more than two years since £300 million was found to be missing, can the Minister tell me how many of those involved have been prosecuted?
    Mr. Heald: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, and it is vital that we have measures that deal not just with claimant fraud, but with fraud by employers, landlords and anyone else. If the hon. Gentleman cares to write to me about the individual case to which he referred, I shall look into it. Nobody must think that collusive employers and landlords are having an easy ride—we are after them as well.
    Mr. Stephen: Is my hon. Friend aware that a favourite racket of those involved in fraud is to sub-let their flat

    131
    and go and live with friends or relations while continuing to claim housing benefit? What is he going to do about that?
    Mr. Heald: My hon. Friend is right, and the measures announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State last Friday will provide substantial help as we try to solve that problem.

    Incapacity Benefit
    Mr. Wigley: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people currently receive incapacity benefit; and what was the equivalent figure for invalidity benefit 12 months earlier. [8792]
    The Minister for Social Security and Disabled People (Mr. Alistair Burt): At 30 November 1995, just under 1.7 million people were claiming incapacity benefit at either the short-term higher rate or the long-term rate. The equivalent figure for invalidity benefit a year earlier was 1.73 million.
    Mr. Wigley: The Minister will recall that his predecessor—the current Secretary of State for Wales—announced on 27 January last year that there would be a saving of £410 million in this financial year from the change from invalidity benefit to incapacity benefit. Given that it is clear that such a reduction in expenditure will not be achieved, will the Minister give an assurance that his Department will not try to claw back that money by making the incapacity test even stiffer? Will the Minister assure the House that the Government will not try to get the money back by, for example, cutting the mobility allowance for hospitals to rake in £40 million? Will he instead find additional resources to maintain the level of support needed by those currently on invalidity or incapacity benefit?
    Mr. Burt: A figure that I recognise better is £210 million in the first year. The point that I should convey to the House and to the hon. Gentleman is the outstanding increase in invalidity benefit in previous years—it doubled over a decade. It was important to put a curb on that growth. The figures that I have given to the House show that that has happened. It is too early in the year to say what the savings will be at the end of the year, because of the build-up of case load. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the incapacity work test will remain properly designed to ensure that those who can work do so, and that those who are incapable of work are not obliged to register for it. We have no intention of changing the test or of making any of the other changes to achieve the object that the hon. Gentleman mentioned.
    Mrs. Roe: I welcome the successful introduction of incapacity benefit. Will my hon. Friend confirm that those people who leave incapacity benefit may be helped through improvements to the disability working allowance?
    Mr. Burt: Yes, my hon. Friend is quite right. Some 7,400 people are now receiving disability working allowance, with an average payment of £54 a week. Some changes were made this year: the single person's threshold was increased; the couple's allowance was
    132
    increased; and, an extra £10 a week is available for those working 30 hours or more. I hope that the disability working allowance becomes better known and is taken up more often, because it is an important part of our progress to ensure that people who are able to work get back in work.
    Mr. Alan Howarth: After nine months of the new incapacity benefit, will the Minister accept that recipients of the old invalidity benefit were not, after all, a load of malingerers, scroungers and leadswingers? Why did the Department of Social Security set up its data-recording procedures so that we cannot be told which claimants of incapacity benefit were claimants of invalidity benefit? Is it because the Government do not want us to know how far the living standards of disabled people have fallen because of the reduction in benefit?
    Mr. Burt: I do not think that any Conservative Member has suggested that every claimant of invalidity benefit was workshy, a leadswinger or anything else. The Government recognise, but Opposition Members fail to recognise and make clear, that some people who were claiming a benefit from the British people were not entitled to it and should have been on a different benefit. Accordingly, we were prepared to make the hard decisions to change the rules.
    Those decisions are justified by the disallowances that have already occurred because of the test for incapacity benefit. Above all, the change proves that, when there are difficult decisions to be taken—that is the responsibility of Government—we are prepared to do so. That is the difference between the responsibility of Government and the failure of the Opposition.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: Does my right hon. Friend welcome the initiative entitled Priority 2000, in which private employment agencies are making a commitment to get people with disabilities back to work and to do so at no cost to the taxpayer, with the great benefit of ensuring that people with disabilities who also have abilities can get back into useful work in the economy?
    Mr. Burt: Yes. Some excellent projects are taking place all over the country to encourage disabled people back into work, which—in this year, with the implementation of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995—will make the important point to employers that the disabled work force is an important part of the work force and that disabled people are no longer to be discriminated against and will give excellent service. I welcome projects such as the one my hon. Friend mentioned, which will help to progress a change of attitude to assist disabled people into work.

    Family Credit
    Mr. Winnick: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the average hourly wage earned by family heads who receive family credit. [8793]
    Mr. Roger Evans: The average hourly wage earned by employed family heads who receive family credit is £3.85.
    Mr. Winnick: Is it not of some importance that a large majority of those who receive family credit are paid a

    133
    very low—in some cases, disgracefully low—wage? Is it not also of interest that, while many Tory Members of Parliament are campaigning to double the parliamentary salary to compensate, in some cases, for loss of consultancies, those same Tory Members are firmly opposed to a decent and fair wage? Does that not show their hypocrisy on this issue?
    Mr. Evans: Let me deal with the serious part of the hon. Gentleman's question. If we accept his premise that help should go to those who need it most, we must also accept that the difficulty with a minimum wage is that research has clearly shown that, purely in terms of social security targeting, the richest 30 per cent. of the population would gain more than the poorest 30 per cent. That is because many of the people who are on the lowest wages are members of households in which someone else is in a much higher bracket. At the same time—let us be absolutely clear—a minimum wage destroys jobs.
    Mrs. Lait: Does my hon. Friend agree that many of those on family credit are single parents? Did he see last night's "Panorama", in which a 17-year-old pregnant girl was clearly about to join the ranks of those on family credit? That programme focused on Hastings, which outraged many of my good constituents. Could he say how our social security reforms are reducing dependency on the welfare state?
    Mr. Evans: I did not see the programme to which my hon. Friend alludes. The important point is that family credit is helping people back into work—including 200,000 lone parents since 1992.

    Habitual Residence Rules
    Mr. Flynn: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment he has made of the effects of the habitual residence rules on British citizens who have lived abroad. [8794]
    Mr. Roger Evans: We continue to monitor the position of British citizens who do not satisfy the habitual residence test.
    Mr. Flynn: Will the Minister consider the cases of three of my constituents who, for the major part of their lives, have lived in Britain, been British taxpayers and paid national insurance, and are now in real hardship? One of them is a wife, the victim of marital violence, while another is a young woman who is expecting a baby on St. David's day. Was it really the intention of the Government to cheat British citizens and recent British taxpayers of benefits to which they were recently entitled and for which they and their families have paid many times over?
    Mr. Evans: If the hon. Gentleman will send me details of the names of his constituents, I shall be happy to look into each of the cases that he has mentioned. I should stress that whether a case meets the test of habitual residence is a matter for the independent adjudicating authorities, and Ministers cannot interfere. The difficulty that he and his Front-Bench colleagues have not addressed is that the reforms, between August 1994 and November 1995, have saved £37 million. To draw up a test that satisfies European law and prevents that sort of abuse was the right way to proceed.
    Mr. Hawkins: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the need for the habitual residence test has been highlighted by magazines such as Time Out, which described London as
    "a honeypot for young Europeans"?
    Does he agree that the increasing incidence of benefit tourism has shown that the habitual residence test was vitally necessary and is welcome to British taxpayers, and that our system, when compared with restrictive social security systems on the continent, has been described by Time Out as "generous"?
    Mr. Evans: My hon. Friend is right on every point.

    Child Support Agency
    Ms Rachel Squire: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the operation of the review procedure of the Child Support Agency. [8795]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Andrew Mitchell): A child maintenance assessment may be reviewed on various grounds. A variety of changes have been made over the past year to streamline and improve the procedures.
    Ms Squire: Does the Minister share my concern that one of my constituents asked for a review of the basis on which his assessment had been made on 1 August 1995, is still waiting for the review to be completed and is in severe financial difficulties as a result? Will the Minister undertake an investigation of my constituent's case and ensure that appropriate action is taken to prevent any similar delay for my constituents or those of other hon. Members?
    Mr. Mitchell: I am aware of that case, as the hon. Lady has raised it with me. I have looked at it personally and found that problems have arisen, some of which are certainly the Child Support Agency's fault. Her constituent's case is now undergoing simultaneously a change of circumstance review and an appeal, and I have given instructions that it should be taken forward as a priority.
    Sir David Model: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Child Support Agency still has some way to go before it reaches a reasonable level of accuracy of assessments? Does he further agree that staff in certain offices must show more patience and understanding when talking to our constituents about the complicated, detailed matters which our constituents are obliged to pass on to them?
    Mr. Mitchell: My hon. Friend is right to emphasise the importance of civil, courteous and effective treatment by agency staff at all times. Staff training has been increased significantly over the past year. It is important to recognise that, following last year's significant changes, the policy is now fair. The CSA will never be loved, as it enters people's lives at a difficult time. Its key challenge, however, is to continue to improve over the coming months, as it has over the past year.
    Ms Lynne: Is it not disgraceful that the Child Support Agency takes on average 211 days to process a claim and,

    135
    of those, only 29 per cent. are right? Is it not also disgraceful that the Child Support Act 1991 is emotionally damaging children brought up in lone-parent families? Is it not time that the Government scrapped the Act and brought in a unified family court system?
    Mr. Mitchell: The hon. Lady's contribution is typical of the unconstructive suggestions that we hear from the Liberal Democrats. A Liberal Democrat policy document says:
    "Some Liberal Democrat ideas are difficult to understand and over complicated."
    Nothing could be more true of what they say about the Child Support Agency. The hon. Lady should pay tribute to the fact that accuracy in the CSA is increasing and has increased significantly since last year. It has been set a target of 75 per cent. accuracy and is running at just over 70 per cent. I am advised that, in the past month, the CSA's accuracy has approached 80 per cent. of all the cases that have come before it.
    Mr. Robert G. Hughes: Does my hon. Friend agree that, although the Child Support Agency has some way to go before it is as good as we all want it to be, hon. Members should congratulate its chief executive on the great improvement that she has made during her time in that job? Will he keep in sight the minority of fathers who can but will not pay, and who do not want to know what it costs to bring up their children, and let them know that the taxpayer will bail them out no longer?
    Mr. Mitchell: My hon. Friend is right. I shall pass on his generous and accurate remarks to the chief executive of the CSA. Over the past year, Parliament has made significant changes to the agency's operation. We have introduced the 30 per cent. rule, which means that no absent parent will pay more than 30 per cent. of his or her net income for current maintenance. In addition, we shall shortly pilot the departures process, which will add to the system an important degree of fairness that may have been missing in the agency's early days.
    Miss Hoey: Will the Minister consider a simple move that would change attitudes? Will he change the terminology that we use and get rid of the term "absent parent", which no other country with a child support agency uses, and use instead titles such as the "payee", or "non-custodial parent"? The fact that a parent is "absent" does not mean that he or she does not care about the child. Why cannot that change be made immediately?
    Mr. Mitchell: The hon. Lady has raised that point before, most recently in the Select Committee, so I am aware of her concern. I agree that the terminology is not entirely satisfactory, but it is not easy to find an alternative form of words to meet our requirements.

    Guaranteed Minimum Pension
    Mr. Anthony Coombs: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proposals he has to introduce a
    136
    guaranteed minimum pension; and what estimate he has made of the cost of a guaranteed minimum pension of £80 a week. [8796]
    Mr. Heald: We have no plans to introduce a guaranteed minimum pension. It is estimated that a scheme of this type, based on £80 a week, would currently cost up to £5 billion.
    Mr. Coombs: Does my hon. Friend agree that the best way to deal with the challenges of an increasingly aging society is not through a guaranteed minimum pension, which may not be sustainable, but by better targeting of benefits towards those who most need them, and the provision of private pensions? Is it not interesting that it has been announced today that £600 billion is invested in investment funds and pension schemes in this country, which is a far greater sum than is invested in all the other European countries put together?
    Mr. Heald: A guaranteed minimum pension would force every pensioner to submit to a means test. It would amount to a tax on thrift. Many people who had a private pension would receive nothing—there could be no greater disincentive to save. As my hon. Friend said, £600 billion is invested in private pension schemes in the UK. That money is invested efficiently, unlike money invested in the stakeholder scheme, in which the trade unions would be involved and which might produce poor returns such as they have in Singapore.
    Mr. Denham: Is not the truth that, under the Tories, more than 3 million pensioners are today forced to depend on means-tested benefits, and perhaps 750,000 do not apply for their entitlement? Is it not also true that more than 1 million pensioners receive less than 20 per cent. of average male earnings—the amount provided by the basic state pension alone in 1979? Is not the truth behind the Minister's words that the Government have betrayed today's generation of pensioners and are in the process of betraying tomorrow's?
    Mr. Heald: The hon. Gentleman is right: take-up is important. That is why the Government have set up about 80,000 information points to which we send information about pensions so that pensioners are aware of their rights. The hon. Gentleman got carried away with his rhetoric. The rise in pensioners' incomes since 1979 has been 51 per cent. in real terms. Some £1.2 billion of extra help has been given to those on income support. When the hon. Gentleman considers the proposals that he suggests for stakeholding or stateholding, does he think that a return rate of 2 per cent. is anywhere near equivalent to the performance of our private sector pensions, which currently give a return of 10 per cent?

    Asylum Seekers
    Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what recent representations he has received about the payment of social security benefits to asylum seekers. [8797]
    Mr. Lilley: I have received a number of items of correspondence about asylum seekers from a variety of sources.
    Mr. Marshall: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that 70 per cent. of asylum seekers who are on benefit misrepresented their assets and means when they came to this country, and that 90 per cent. of claims for asylum are shown to be bogus? Do not those facts and the rapid increase in the number of asylum seekers underline the need for action and the sheer irresponsibility of those who oppose any action?
    Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend is right: 70 per cent. of those who claim to be asylum seekers did not, originally, when they entered the country and were asked by immigration officials their reasons for doing so, say that they were seeking asylum—they said that they were visitors, tourists or business men. They had to demonstrate and convince the immigration officers that what they said was true. They had to demonstrate that they had the means to support themselves when here and the means to return home subsequently. They usually showed that they had someone to stay with here. In those circumstances, it seems perfectly reasonable that they should not receive benefit if they subsequently change their story and declare themselves to be asylum seekers. That is the rule that we are introducing under the new regulations.
    Mr. Chris Smith: Is the Secretary of State aware that both the Archbishop of Canterbury and Cardinal Hume have recently written jointly to the Prime Minister to express their concern about the Government's proposals? What has his response been—simply to plough ahead? Will he now answer the question that he has consistently refused to answer: when all benefit is withdrawn, how are people to live? How are they to feed their children? Will they starve? Has humanity completely disappeared?
    Mr. Lilley: The hon. Gentleman was not here when the statement was made—he was seeking asylum in Singapore, I believe—and consequently he perhaps did not hear the reasons for what we have done and the justification for the changes. As I have just explained, I believe that justification to be sound. The only people who will be required to live on their own resources after making a claim for asylum will be those who have demonstrated to the immigration authorities that they have the resources on which to live. My response, on receiving the letters from the noble prelates to whom the hon. Gentleman referred, was to offer to see them before I made my statement.
    Mr. Churchill: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the widespread resentment about the fact that foreign nationals from outside the European economic area can qualify for British social security almost as soon as they arrive in this country? Is my right hon. Friend further aware that Canada has a five-year residence requirement before any foreigner can qualify for Canadian social security? Is it not time that we introduced similar rules in this country?
    Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend is right. Until recently, our rules were considerably laxer than those of most other countries, both as regards people from within the European economic area and those outside it. We have tightened up—rightly—in both cases. We have introduced an habitual residence test, which will, I hope, stop—and has largely stopped—benefit tourism in Europe, and we are tightening up on claims by asylum seekers.
    138
    We are also determined to remain a safe haven for people who genuinely seek asylum and are fleeing persecution from abroad. They come here for our freedom, not our benefits.

    Child Support Agency
    Mr. Miller: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to improve the accuracy of assessments by the Child Support Agency. [8798]
    Mr. Andrew Mitchell: The Child Support Agency has already introduced a range of measures to improve accuracy.
    Mr. Miller: Earlier, the Minister spoke about accuracy of between 70 and 80 per cent. That is a tremendous contrast with the last report of the chief adjudication officer, in which he said that only 29 per cent. of assessments were entirely correct.
    Is the Minister saying that there has been an incredible improvement, or is the impression, held by hon. Members on both sides of the House, that the Minister is speaking about entirely different sets of figures, correct? I believe that that is what he is doing.
    Mr. Mitchell: No. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the agency has significantly improved its accuracy. The report to which he refers says that the key ingredients to ensure further substantial improvements in accuracy are already in place. I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's recognition that accuracy, which is at the top of the agency's agenda, is improving.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: While I commend my hon. Friend on the improvements that have been achieved in respect of the CSA, and on the contribution to them that has been made by Miss Ann Chant, I remain worried about the number of inaccurate assessments. Is it not about time that an independent review or appeal body were established, to which aggrieved mothers or fathers might appeal?
    Mr. Mitchell: I thank my hon. Friend for his opening remarks. We continually keep under review whether there are ways in which we might improve the performance and procedures of the Child Support Agency, and we are bearing in mind the argument that he has just made.

    Child Support Agency
    Mr. Jamieson: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many disciplinary actions have been taken against employees of the CSA who have breached confidentiality of clients. [8799]
    Mr. Andrew Mitchell: Twenty staff have been disciplined for breaches of confidentiality since the agency was set up in 1993.
    Mr. Jamieson: Is the Minister aware of the case of Mr. Marc Carder of Plymouth, the personal and intimate details of whose case notes were leaked to the media by a member of the Child Support Agency, which led to headlines about his case in the Evening Herald? First,

    139
    what will the Minister do to recompense Mr. Carder? Secondly, what will he do to ensure that such action cannot happen again? Thirdly, what he has done about the employee who leaked those details?
    Mr. Mitchell: I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the employee who leaked those details has been sacked. The CSA takes breaches of confidentiality very seriously. Three members of staff have been sacked for that offence; all three came from the Plymouth CSA centre.

    Asylum Seekers
    Mr. Timms: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security to what extent his proposals for reducing the scope for asylum seekers to claim income support apply to the provision of free school meals to their children. [8800]
    Mr. Lilley: Only those entitled to income support are eligible for free school meals for their children.
    Mr. Timms: Can the Secretary of State confirm that some asylum seekers will not be permitted to work, will not be able to claim any benefits, and will now not be able to claim free school meals for their children? How does he expect them to live?
    Mr. Lilley: That is not the situation. Asylum seekers are entitled to work—and they receive such an entitlement—after they have been in the country for six months. The responsibilities of local authorities under the Children Act 1989 will not change. Local authorities have a duty to ensure that children in their areas do not suffer hardship, and they must make financial provision to prevent that.
    We hope that the vast majority of asylum seekers will either be genuine refugees who make that claim at the ports, and will therefore be entitled to benefit, or will have the means to support themselves, be able to demonstrate that fact and be able to support their children. The risk of hardship to which the hon. Gentleman refers therefore does not arise.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mrs. Jane Kennedy: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 23 January. [8819]
    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mrs. Kennedy: Is the Prime Minister aware of the latest Lloyds bank business in Britain survey which shows that business confidence has fallen and that three quarters of companies in the north west have failed to invest? Last week, the Minister for Trade said in the House that Britain is not
    "in the first division of industrialised nations".—[Official Report, 17 January 1996; Vol. 269, c. 730.]
    140
    Does the Prime Minister agree with that statement?
    The Prime Minister: Unlike most other countries—some of which the hon. Lady no doubt fondly believes are doing better than us, when they are not—the United Kingdom's output has risen in every quarter for almost four years. It is now 6 per cent. above its previous peak. Growth in 1995 was 2.6 per cent., which is about the level that was forecast by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor. No economy in western Europe has performed as well as the British economy in the past 12 months, or is doing so.
    Mr. Kenneth Baker: Does my right hon. Friend agree that parents who send their children to grant-maintained schools and grammar schools should be welcomed as stakeholders? Is it not morally indefensible for such parents to grab privileges for their own children while denying them to other children?
    The Prime Minister: I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend. I am glad to see that many right hon. and hon. Members are now using some of the opportunities that my right hon. Friend framed as Education Secretary. The events of the past few days prove that, as they say, the Labour party has changed. Yesterday's Labour party said that it would abolish GM schools the day after tomorrow; today's Labour Members say that they will abolish them once their children have finished their education.
    Mr. David Evans: What about the Oratory?
    Madam Speaker: Order. Hon. Members are wasting time. I have not yet named the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Mr. Evans), but I have time to do so before 3.30 pm.
    Mr. Blair: We see the baying mob. If Conservative Members think, after the damage that they have done to this country, that they will ride to popularity on the back of a decision about 11-year-old boys, they credit the British people with too little sense.
    Will the Prime Minister confirm the figures in today's Confederation of British Industry manufacturing survey, which show that orders are flat and that business optimism is decreasing? Taken with the latest figures on living standards, which show that, last year, living standards fell for the first time for more than 12 years, is it any wonder that the feel-good factor is absent and that the Prime Minister has had to call a special Cabinet meeting for tomorrow to encourage it?
    The Prime Minister: Perhaps I may offer my sympathies to the right hon. Gentleman on his current predicament. I am glad that he is supporting the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) in her decision. He must back her. He certainly cannot sack her, because all she is doing is playing follow my leader.
    A few days ago, the right hon. Gentleman said that there were some very good things about Britain, but when it suits his purposes he is quite happy to pervert the statistics to try to score cheap points and damage the country. The facts are that living standards have risen by 40 per cent. since 1979 and take-home pay after inflation has risen by £80 a week for the average family—and it is

    141
    expected to rise by a further £450 next year. The right hon. Gentleman cannot name a country in Europe that has an economic performance that equals ours at present, or the opportunities from the platform that we have produced. Not one.
    Mr. Blair: I thank the Prime Minister for his kind words of concern about pressure. The difference between us is that I will not buckle under it. [Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. Other hon. Members have questions on the Order Paper and I want to hear them. Let us have order on both sides of the House.
    Mr. Blair: Will the Prime Minister confirm that, despite the 25 per cent. devaluation of our currency, we still have a trade deficit with the rest of Europe? The right hon. Gentleman asked for comparisons with Europe. Will he also confirm that, during the whole period of Conservative government, employment and growth levels in investment have been lower than in any other major European country, and that we have fallen from 13th to 18th in the world prosperity league? Is there not now a direct contrast between the speeches of the Prime Minister and the experience and reality of the vast majority of the British people?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman should not be so sensitive about his difficulties. I just want to be tough on hypocrisy and tough on the causes of hypocrisy.
    If the right hon. Gentleman wants to know about the state of the country, I remind him that we have the lowest level of inflation for more than 50 years, the lowest mortgage rates for 30 years, the lowest unemployment of any major European country, the lowest basic rate of tax for more than 50 years and more inward investment than the rest of Europe added together, and we export more per person than Japan or the United States. Those are the facts about the country. However much the right hon. Gentleman tries to run it down for his own partisan political interests, that is what we have created and those are the opportunities that we will build on, up to and beyond the general election.
    Mr. French: Did my right hon. Friend see reports last week about the social services inspector who sought to bring pressure to bear on a children's playgroup because it was said that the toys in use were not of the correct colour and therefore not politically correct? Is he aware that that story emanated from the same local authority that was responsible for the safari boy—a Labour and Liberal-controlled authority that never loses an opportunity to say that it cannot fulfil its responsibilities because it is short of money? It is currently trying to close much-needed adult opportunity centres.
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend makes his point very clearly without my adding to it. If the leader of the Liberal party wants to comment, he can no doubt turn to his own advisers. Perhaps this is one of the policies that they have told him were "barmy" and "duplicitous", and "would bankrupt the nation".
    Mr. Ashdown: When it comes to crimes against humanity, surely there can never be any place for neutrality. Is it not true that no just and durable peace can
    142
    ever be built unless justice is not only done but seen to be done against those who perpetrate war crimes? Will the Prime Minister confirm that the Government expect IFOR—and will support it—to take every step necessary to safeguard war crimes evidence, to protect the investigators and to ensure that these people are brought to book?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman touches on a very important point. We strongly support the work of the war crimes tribunal and have done more than most to help it with financial support, equipment, and seconded staff; and we have provided evidence to the prosecutor's office.
    IFOR will conduct regular foot patrols and aerial reconnaissance over the area. It has been asked to report any unusual activity, such as any attempt to disturb the site.
    Mr. Couchman: Will my right hon. Friend take time during his busy day to write to the head teachers of St. Olave's school in Orpington and its sister school, Newstead Wood school for girls, which my daughter attended, to congratulate them on running such excellent schools that they attract pupils from 15 miles and two boroughs away?
    The Prime Minister: I am delighted to congratulate those schools on the excellent opportunities they offer their pupils. It is certainly our policy to make sure that every school offers the same sort of opportunity. We believe it right for parents to take those opportunities.
    Mr. Bill Michie: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 23 January. [8820]
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Michie: I want to ask a simple but serious question. The Prime Minister continually describes Britain as the enterprise centre of Europe. [Interruption.] Conservative Members may laugh, but does not the right hon. Gentleman find it unbelievable that Britain cannot afford to supply lifesaving equipment such as a nebuliser and a humidifier to an 80-year-old constituent of mine who suffers from cancer and communicates via a throat microphone? The country apparently cannot even afford to pay £79 of service charges. What sort of enterprise centre is that?
    The Prime Minister: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman provide my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health with the details of that case so that it can be examined. If he were genuinely concerned about the matter, that is what he would have done—instead of raising one case out of 8.5 million patients without providing the opportunity to examine its details.
    The hon. Gentleman knows that there is a test of whether the health service is doing better. It is not a test that I have set; it was set by the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook). The test, he said, is whether more people are treated as a result of the health service reforms than ever before. We have met that test: 1.5 million more patients are

    143
    being treated. Why does not the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that, instead of raising these cases in this forum, rather than where they should be raised?

    Ministerial Visits
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: To ask the Prime Minister when he next plans to pay an official visit to Cirencester and Tewkesbury. [8821]
    The Prime Minister: I have, at present, no plans to do so.
    Mr. Clifton-Brown: If my right hon. Friend were to visit my constituency, he would discover that parents have opted for six out of eight secondary schools to become grant-maintained. Will he commend the principled stand of certain Opposition Members, who made the correct choice of school for their children? Is it not the height of hypocrisy to seek to deny that choice to my constituents and others?
    The Prime Minister: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend about that. I believe that the view of most people in the country is that the hon. Member for Peckham was right to exercise choice in favour of her own child. No one objects to that. What is wrong is that the Labour party would deny those same choices to other parents throughout the country.

    Engagements
    Mr. Salmond: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 23 January. [8822]
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Salmond: Is the Prime Minister aware that Robert Burns might be birling in his grave in this, his bicentennial year, at the prospect of the Scottish Secretary laying a wreath at his memorial in London? Excise duties, in which the poet might have had a vested interest, have been increased, but can the Prime Minister point to a policy of his Administration that reflects the qualities of compassion, equality, Scottish patriotism and human understanding that flow through the works of Robert Burns? Is there a policy that reflects any of those virtues?
    The Prime Minister: I strongly suspect that, if the great poet were here today, he certainly would not support the policies of the hon. Gentleman. He certainly would not support policies of extra taxation that will drive more Scottish opportunities out of Scotland and more Scots out of Scotland, and he certainly would not propose the isolationism that underpins the hon. Gentleman's policies.
    Mr. Tim Devlin rose—
    Madam Speaker: Does the hon. Gentleman wish to raise a point of order?
    Mr. Devlin: I am sorry, Madam Speaker. Perhaps you could not hear me in the hurly-burly, but I was seeking to raise a point of order. It relates to the method by which people whose names are not recorded in Hansard might indicate whether they were abstaining. I understand that, in a Division last night, the Leader of the Opposition did not vote. I should like to know whether that was an abstention or whether he just failed to appear.
    Madam Speaker: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would ask the Leader of the Opposition—that is not a matter for the Speaker.

Child Support (Appeal)
3.31 pm
Mr. Archy Kirkwood: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to enable liabilities of absent parents assessed by the Child Support Agency to be reduced on appeal where those assessments can be shown to cause exceptional hardship; and for connected purposes.
My Bill seeks to introduce a much more effective and far-reaching system of review of the assessments that are raised by the CSA against absent parents for the maintenance of children from previous relationships. I am pleased to see that the Minister responsible has kindly waited to listen to the debate.
I should make it clear at the outset that nothing in the proposal seeks to disturb the concept that parents have—rightly—a moral and legal duty to make reasonable provision for their offspring. Maintenance payments have always been—and should always be—enforced against a parent who leaves the matrimonial home and can afford to pay, but, despite that, refuses or delays to pay a realistic contribution towards the upkeep of the children. It is important that every effort should be made to encourage prospective parents, particularly prospective fathers, to understand that, in having children, they are taking on a responsibility that lasts for life.
I should also make it clear that nothing in the Bill would detract from my support for the position taken by my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Ms Lynne), who, as social security spokesman for my party, has led a crusade against that unhappy measure, the Child Support Act 1991, having regard, as she has rightly said, to the perverse and pernicious effect of the practice, implementation and enforcement of the Act. I believe that she is absolutely right to seek its abolition.
Sadly, however, I am realistic enough to expect that there is next to no chance of that happening under this Government. If this Parliament runs for another 15 or 16 months, as it may, that is too long to wait for the necessary change. Therefore, this amending Bill seeks to mitigate further the worst effects of the legislation in the short term, pending a new legislative framework which I hope will be introduced in the next Parliament.
I suspect that my case work is far from unique, but I despair every time a constituent consults me about the Child Support Agency. Since I was elected in 1983, I have tried to maintain an active interest in social security and related matters. I accept that it is an area that often involves difficult decisions and the implementation of a complex and technical system that often leaves constituents dissatisfied, but I can usually obtain some measure of reconsideration, reconciliation or redress from the rest of the social security system. However, in my experience, there is no such redress under the Child Support Act system.
In particular, there is no redress for parents separated from their children who are willing to pay but simply cannot afford the level of liability assessed. It is that particular group of people about whom I am particularly perturbed and whose situation the Bill specifically addresses.
I took part in the legislative proposals which brought the 1991 Act into being. I do not believe that it was Parliament's intention to devise a set of circumstances in
146
which there is no possibility of any real discretion being applied to the facts and circumstances of individuals who are willing to pay but who are being forced into what is effectively perpetual penury without any effective right of appeal on the level of maintenance levied by the agency.
That contrasts vividly with my experience in a previous incarnation in the criminal courts in Scotland, where even people found guilty of criminal offences had the consideration of the sheriff or the judge in the High Court of Justiciary, who, by law, has a duty to consider the facts and circumstances of each individual case before a fine is levied. If that is good enough for criminals, it is good enough for the people being dealt with by the CSA.
I have literally dozens—I have counted—of constituents who are willing to pay but who are caught in exactly the situation that I have described. The latest example that I came across was in Hawick last Friday. The men there are not hothouse flowers—they are usually tough independent characters—but one man was in tears in front of me because his wages had just been arrested. It was obvious from an earlier interview that he was completely riddled with guilt because he could not pay more for his child despite wanting to, but now he had the additional ignominy—in a small community such news gets round town, into the pubs and everywhere—of being known to his mates as someone who could not pay what was required of him by the CSA. That wage arrestment added to his shame.
That man has given up work because he is not much worse off. Of course, arrears accrue in perpetuity, but they are already at a level that he cannot possibly afford, so it is no skin off his nose. What sort of outcome is that? Who wins in such a situation? Certainly he does not win, and certainly the child does not win because this interferes with the relationship between father and child. Certainly the state does not win, because he will end up initially on unemployment benefit and probably on long-term unemployment benefit through the income support system. That is a typically unhappy outcome of a not unusual set of circumstances.
The original Act has existed for long enough for us to judge whether it is doing the job that it was designed to do. Alas, I have concluded that the difficulties that it has produced, and continues to produce, are chronic, complex, endemic and impossible to handle without a radical overhaul.
I accept that the Government have proposed amendments, but they fall considerably short of what is needed to deal with cases such as the constituency case that I described. The so-called departure system that is to be introduced shortly is by no means a deliberative review of individual circumstances. Of course it helps; it introduces the idea that hardship cases can be examined. It does not go nearly far enough, however, and for that reason we voted against the relevant legislation last year—rightly, in my view.
We still maintain that the amendments constitute an inadequate response to problems which we expect to continue after the introduction of the new system in May, affecting in particular absent parents who are still willing to pay some amount of maintenance.
Even more pressure will be put on second families. There is evidence that second families are being badly disrupted by the continuing pressure that they already experience. Who does that help? How does it help the

147
children? Where, in such circumstances, are the paramount interests of the child? Where is the interest of the absent parent, and where is the interest of the state? In the long run, we must pick up the cost in oneway or another.
For that and other reasons, I consider the current legislation—including the amendments that we anticipate—counter-productive. I believe that this flawed legislation should be scrapped altogether, but if we cannot achieve that until the next Parliament my amending Bill will, I trust, go some small way towards further mitigating its worst effects.
If Conservative Members, and the Government in particular, support the Bill and it becomes law, they will be able to offer constituents who come to their surgeries some hope of an effective opportunity to argue their cases before an independent tribunal that would have power to vary the liabilities assessed by the CSA. If the Government do not support the Bill, it will not succeed; but at least I shall be able to tell my constituents in Hawick that I tried.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Archy Kirkwood, Mr. Alan Beith, Mrs. Ray Michie, Mr. Paul Tyler, Mrs. Diana Maddock, Mr. Menzies Campbell, Mr. Chris Davies, Mr. David Rendel, Mr. Don Foster and Mr. Simon Hughes.

Child Support (Appeal)
  CHILD SUPPORT (APPEAL)
  Mr. Archy Kirkwood accordingly presented a Bill to enable liabilities of absent parents assessed by the Child Support Agency to be reduced on appeal where those assessments can be shown to cause exceptional hardship; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 16 February and to be printed. [Bill 45.]
Orders of the Day

  Finance Bill
  (Clauses 36, 105, 112 and 139 and Schedule No. 15)
  Considered in Committee.
  [MR. MICHAEL MORRIS in the Chair]
  Ordered,
  That the order in which proceedings in Committee of the whole House on the Finance Bill are to be taken shall be Clause 36, Clause 105, Schedule 15, Clause 139, Clause 112.—[Mr. Heathcoat-Amory.]

  Finance Bill
    Clause 36

      CHARGE TO TAX
      Mr. Tim Smith: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. May I seek your guidance? Do you anticipate that there will be a debate on clause stand part, or a wide-ranging debate on the first amendment?
      The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael Morris): The occupant of the Chair never anticipates whether there shall or shall not be a debate on clause stand part until the debate on the amendments has taken place, but the debate on the amendment must be confined to the amendment.
      3.45 pm
      Ms Dawn Primarolo: I beg to move amendment No. 5, in page 24, line 32, at end insert
      'provided that the tax shall not be charged until such time as a matching cut in the main rate of employers' national insurance contributions has been made.'.
      The amendment's purpose is to bring the rebate in line with the levying of the landfill tax.
      The landfill tax was announced in the Budget in 1994 as a tax with an unusual purpose. Rather than raising revenue, it is intended to change behaviour and to encourage the production of less waste by business and consumers, less disposal of waste in landfill sites and, most important, more recycling and other recovery of the value from waste. The detailed proposals to be implemented in the Finance Act 1996 and the statutory instruments that will follow later in 1996 must be measured against that yardstick.
      Most important, the subject of the amendment involves the fact that revenue from the tax is to be passed back to business by way of a rebate of employers' national insurance contributions. Within certain limits, rebates will also be given for contributions to certain "environmental trusts". The 1995 Budget confirmed the linkage to national insurance contributions, although it is not complete as the landfill tax is collected for six months from 1 October 1996 and the national insurance contribution rebate comes into effect from 6 April 1997. Our amendment seeks to bring those two dates in line. I should like to explain why that should be done.
      Many detailed provisions, which will be set out in secondary legislation, are pertinent to the rebate, but we cannot discuss them this afternoon. The functioning of the environmental trust scheme, the definition of qualifying

      149
      materials and the cost-compliance assessment will be considered in secondary legislation, but it is the rebate that we are concerned with today.
      I need to put it on the record that Labour is broadly in favour of landfill charges and that we are not objecting today to the principle. We made it clear in our document "In Trust for Tomorrow" why we supported a landfill tax. It is based on the principle that the polluter should pay, it targets most dangerous waste, and it introduces credits against increased charges for landfill sites that install equipment to generate energy from methane. Charges should reflect differing regional environmental impact, and that must be done alongside a package of other measures.
      We agree with the conclusion of the report from the House of Lords Select Committee on Sustainable Development, which states at page 75:
      "It is not realistic to expect people to change their lifestyles for moral reasons alone. We need appropriate fiscal and legal measures to overcome the barriers to the adoption of more sustainable lifestyles and patterns of consumption".
      That is the purpose of the landfill tax. There is serious doubt, however, that that laudable aim can be achieved by the Government's proposals.
      The Government state that the aim of introducing the new tax is that the additional costs arising will be passed on to waste producers. For local authorities, that suggests that council tax payers should bear the additional cost through an increase in their council tax bills, which will create, in theory, the incentive for them to reduce waste and to make better use of their waste produce. However, any incentive would be very weak.
      The problem with the national insurance rebate is clear because council tax payers pay for waste disposal at an undifferentiated sum within their council tax bills. In addition, authorities are already spending at their capping limits, so any additional cost that is not reflected in those limits could result in serious reductions in services elsewhere. The relationship to the national insurance contribution rebate is crucial. If the desired move from waste disposal to waste reduction and recycling is to happen, there must be a major awareness and education campaign on the issues, so that the public can understand the rationale behind the tax.
      The problem with the mechanism in the clause is that the conditions on British landfill sites vary. Disposal without energy recovery is at the very bottom of the waste hierarchy. Likewise, landfill sites without the benefit of modern technology to monitor conditions and recover methane are environmentally a poor option for disposing of waste. Inevitably, waste contains a certain amount of moisture and during the process of that waste breaking down leachates—liquid from waste—sinks to the bottom of the land and methane is produced. By the Government's own admission on page 20 of their draft waste strategy,
      "landfill sites are the largest single source of methane emissions in the UK, and methane is the second most important greenhouse gas after carbon dioxide."
      Therefore, the relationship of the rebate and the environmental trust to those who manage the sites needs to be tightly drawn.
      150
      Many of the sites have problems with high levels of leakage, which threaten to contaminate the surrounding environment. Delays in money being made available to improve the sites clearly exacerbate the problem. However, surveys show that half the landfill sites operate the dilute and disperse method, which allows leakage into the soil and water beneath the site with no attempt at controlling it. If those sites are to have access to rebates, that will simply encourage bad behaviour. Some sites use modern engineering techniques to monitor and control gas emissions. Indeed, I know of a good one in Avon, which would not be rewarded for its good practice through the payment scheme mechanism in the clause.
      I want now to deal specifically with the national insurance contribution. Treasury press notice 138/94 of 29 November 1994 quotes the Chancellor as saying in the 1994 Budget statement that it was his intention
      "to look at ways to offset the impact of landfill tax on business, including compensatory reductions in employers' national insurance contributions. This switch in the balance of taxation will discourage an activity which damages the environment while helping to cut the costs of investment."
      That was a good statement.
      In his 1995 Budget statement, the Chancellor confirmed the switch, saying:
      "The money raised by the landfill tax will allow for a matching cut in the main rate of employers' national insurance contributions by a further 0.2 per cent. to 10 per cent. from April 1997. That will cut the cost of employment by half a billion pounds and will make it cheaper for businesses to create new jobs."—[Official Report, 28 November 1995; Vol. 267, c. 1064.]
      The intention of the amendment is to take the Chancellor's words and put them on the face of the Bill, and it is difficult to see how the Government could possibly object to that.
      A clear undertaking has been given time and time again that the tax would be levied and the national insurance contributions would come back at the same time as the compensation. Indeed, the intended reduction was confirmed in the Secretary of State for Social Security's annual national insurance contribution review. Since the annual national insurance changes are introduced by statutory instrument, there is no direct reference to the proposed reductions in the Finance Bill. Consequently, there is no guarantee that the tax will always be offset by national insurance changes in the future.
      In addition, although the tax will be introduced in October 1996, the rebate does not take effect until six months later on 6 April 1997. As the proposals do not affect businesses equally, the process will obviously result in winners and losers. If, as the Government intend, the tax succeeds in deterring dumping on landfill sites, revenues will decrease. That will affect future rates of national insurance contributions.
      To give an example, the Association of Metropolitan Authorities has made the following calculation—local authorities collect approximately 22 million tonnes of waste a year, so the tax will mean an added cost in the region of £154 million a year. The Government's response to the consultation on the landfill tax last year stated:
      "The concerns of local authorities are also understood by the Government. Local authorities are responsible for the collection and disposal of household waste, and it is recognised that the cost of the tax in respect of such waste that is landfilled will fall on them. The proposed reduction in employers' NICs will affect local authorities and, over the coming months, the Government will address the issue … in the context of the local government finance settlement."

      151
      A reduction of 0.2 per cent. in employers' national insurance contributions for the whole of local government only adds up to £30 million. There is therefore a net cost of more than £120 million. This is not accounted for in the local government settlement, and authorities will have to find the money from elsewhere. A further delay in introducing the national insurance rebate will clearly make that situation more difficult.
      The net costs arise because local authorities have labour-intensive services, and are therefore likely to benefit more than average from reductions in national insurance contributions. Not only do they dispose of waste generated from their own operations—as would be the case in industry generally—but, as waste disposal authorities, they are responsible for disposing of waste generated within their boundaries.
      On Budget day 1995, the Secretary of State for the Environment sought to buttress the considerations of national insurance by saying:
      "The establishment of environmental trusts will complement and reinforce our policies for sustainable waste management, for example by promoting recycling, and strengthen the environmental credentials of the landfill tax. The trusts scheme has the potential to generate up to about £100 million of private sector expenditure for environmental improvement."
      The trusts will be funded by contributions from landfill operators. Local authorities cannot apply to the trust for money because they do not run landfill sites. The money that the operators pay in comes out of their own pockets—it works something like a donation to a charity, on which companies receive tax relief—but they do not pay as much as they would if the rebate did not exist.
      Someone more cynical than I am might ask why landfill site operators would want to pay into a scheme that would be a net cost to them, particularly when there is a rebate delay. The idea of the tax is to reduce the amount of waste that goes into landfill, but unless the site operator is also a waste producer, and most are not, why would they want to reduce the amount of waste, which produces their profits, going into landfill? The operators have no incentive to do so, and the manner in which the national insurance contributions are returned does not encourage them.
      4 pm
      The Government say that site operators will be able to increase their charges to pass on the incentive to the waste producers. Will there be any safeguards on the amount of the charge increases? Could a landfill operator, for example, pass on the cost, not only of the tax but of its contribution to the environmental trust? I shall give another example from my county, while it still exists. Under these proposals, disposal of the waste generated by Avon county is estimated to cost £1.4 million in 1996–97 and £2.8 million in 1997–98, while the total rebate to the authority would be less than £500,000 in the first year. Considerable costs would be borne there, and it is antagonised by the delay.
      There should be greater emphasis on providing economic mechanisms to encourage the recycling of construction and demolition waste. One suggestion, beyond a weight-based tax, is to band it to reflect the level of environmental protection in place at different sites. The idea is to discourage un-engineered sites and to encourage further investment in advanced landfill disposal facilities
      152
      with containment systems. That would be a sensible way to buttress the national insurance rebate and the applications to the environmental trust for funds—but it does not do that.
      Any substantial increase in cost is likely to encourage the cowboy element in the industry, which seeks the cheap option by fly tipping. Although the Government have said that they will look into the problem, the costs of dealing with it are still in doubt and the decisions still have to be made. Like the attempt to label VAT on domestic fuel an environmental measure, the proposed implementation risks of the tax are in danger of discrediting the idea of environmental taxation. It is therefore in the interests of all hon. Members to ensure that the proposals are clearly drafted and that they deliver their drafters' objective.
      The Government say that the aim of the tax is to promote a more sustainable approach to waste management. If that is so, why is landfill the only option being considered? Are we sending a signal to the market that landfill is the preferred method of disposal, and are we in danger, therefore, of not making the connections with future development?
      Most commentators say that, if the tax achieves anything, as it stands, it will create a distortion in the market in favour of recycling, re-use and environmentally friendly policies. The theory of environmental taxation is that it should be set at the level of the marginal external costs of the environmental damage, but those costs must include wider considerations than have been given in this submission.
      The question is whether the tax achieves its purpose. It does not favour recycling over non-landfill, and incineration or dumping at sea could increase. The tax structure does not recognise the fact that, in some cases, landfill is the best method of disposal from an environmental viewpoint—indeed for some waste it is the only method. In those cases, it operates, at best, as a straight tax on disposal and not as an environmental tax.
      The tax does not recognise that, in some cases, material can be of positive benefit in a landfill site while still being waste to the person who is disposing of it. Inert materials are a classic example. They can be used as backfill in mine workings or to cap landfill sites. As a result, the tax does not encourage as much as it might the matching of waste from one business to the needs of another. The tax is a blunt instrument for distinguishing waste according to the degree of environmental damage that it causes.
      There will be more incentive for individuals and businesses to evade their environmental responsibilities, both in respect of the fly tipping of rubbish on other people's land and of disposing of material on their own land without complying with licensing requirements under the Environmental Protection Act 1990.
      The tax is flawed in one important respect. During the consultations, the Government made it clear that the objective of the tax is to force waste producers either to produce less waste for landfill or to find a place higher in the waste hierarchy for their output. Unfortunately, the current proposals do not do that.
      Most importantly, the proposals do not provide for commitments that were given to the House. National insurance contributions and the tax are levied at the same time. This is a tidying-up amendment that would put into legislation the commitments made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, over two years, for national insurance

      153
      contribution cuts to run in parallel with the levying of the tax. I hope that the House will accept the amendment as a positive contribution to an important debate.
      Mr. Tim Smith: The proposed landfill tax has my full support. I have always thought that, if the Government were to intervene in the market to change the environmental behaviour of industry and commerce, the best way would be by means of a fiscal instrument such as this rather than by endless extra regulation of businesses. I believe that it is possible to change behaviour quite quickly by using the tax system. I understand the Treasury's reluctance to adopt green taxes—after all, there will be no net addition to the Revenue.
      Our one green tax is the extra tax on leaded petrol, which has been extremely effective in persuading motorists to change to unleaded fuel, with considerable benefit to the environment. The landfill tax breaks new ground, because it is principally a tax on business. It is right that the Treasury should have consulted widely before introducing it, to ensure that it impacts fairly on business.
      The tax has my full support, because I have several landfill sites in my constituency. As there is a great deal of gravel in the Thames valley, it has many landfill sites. They are not popular with local people, because they are messy, smelly places. There is no doubt that more could be done to recycle many waste materials, including paper.
      The hon. Member for Bristol, South (Ms Primarolo) mentioned the response of councils. Of course they will be concerned if the only option available to them is to pass the costs on through extra council tax, but that is not the only option available. The tax should concentrate the minds of councillors on finding other ways to dispose of the waste. For example, my council—South Bucks district council—has recently introduced the separate collection of waste paper, which will allow it to send paper off for recycling rather dumping it at landfill sites. That is a major step forward. The tax will inevitably encourage other councils to adopt a similar approach.
      The important thing for business is to keep a close eye on the objective of the tax. As a matter of principle, it should be levied only where there is a satisfactory alternative that offers an environmental improvement. I guess that that is the case in most examples that one could think of, but I want to mention a company in my constituency, British Alcan of Gerrards Cross, which makes aluminium products. It has a chemical plant in Scotland, which produces not only 220,000 tonnes of an aluminium chemical every year but 220,000 tonnes of red mud.
      I am not sure what red mud is, but there is no alternative to dumping it in a landfill site, which the company owns and operates. The company has tried to find alternative uses for the red mud, but nobody seems interested in using it for motorways or anything else for which it might be suitable. As the company operates in an international market with world prices, if we simply impose an extra tax of £7 or even £2 per tonne on what it does, we shall simply render it uncompetitive in that market.
      I hope that, when we consider the details of this provision in Standing Committee, we can take the issue a little further forward. I appreciate that today we are
      154
      debating only the narrow amendment, moved by the hon. Member for Bristol, South, that the introduction of a national insurance rebate should be brought forward to October. I do not know when those who collect the landfill tax will first pay it to Customs and Excise, but if it is anything like VAT, there will be a four-month delay and the first payment will be in January, although the tax may have been collected in October. A company's cash flow position may therefore be a factor.
      I support the tax in principle and hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will look at the matters that I have mentioned in relation to British Alcan in Committee.
      Sir James Molyneaux: I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith), particularly in the light of his distinguished record as a Minister in the Northern Ireland Office. Having held that office, he will be as aware as I am of the 26 extremely small councils that will be responsible for handling the landfill tax. He will know that they are starved of resources and that their rating machinery does not compare to the machinery that exists on this island. That is why I have doubts about the principle of the landfill tax.
      The hon. Member for Bristol, South (Ms Primarolo) used an unfortunate term in her speech when she said that pressure must be applied on polluters. In Northern Ireland, the "polluters" are those 26 small councils, so it is not fair that the victims should be regarded as the polluters. The councils are not large employers of labour. They provide services mainly to their ratepayers rather than large industrialists with an enormous amount of waste for disposal.
      To what extent does the hon. Lady think that those councils would benefit from a cut in national insurance contributions? I doubt whether they would benefit greatly; after all, most of the waste they collect is household waste. They will be compelled to collect the landfill tax mainly from householders, and will then have to resort to imposing the burden on ratepayers.
      As the hon. Member for Beaconsfield will understand well, we have a peculiar layer of local taxation called the "regional rate", which relates to some mythical council area in north-east England and is pure guesswork. I cannot see how the councils could benefit from a reduction in national insurance contributions unless they transferred the full burden of collecting the tax and the tax itself to ratepayers in their individual counties. The House will have gathered that I am not making a case for the landfill tax, but I am inclined to oppose it as, particularly in our case, it clobbers the wrong sector.
      4.15 pm
      Mrs. Helen Jackson: I am speaking to amendment No. 5, not because the Labour party opposes the principle of a landfill tax or levy but because we feel that such a tax should be a fiscal instrument that operates in a way that can truly be said to benefit the environment. The costs and benefits of the employers' national insurance contributions have not yet been properly worked out. The amendment attempts to address those issues and highlight the aspects of the landfill tax or levy that still cause great concern to businesses and major employers that are involved in waste disposal and that will therefore be liable to the environmental tax.

      155
      When the Environment Select Committee conducted an inquiry into recycling, we were convinced of the case for the waste hierarchy that puts waste reduction at the top, followed by waste recycling or waste recovery through incineration, followed by incineration without any energy recovery, followed by landfill. That hierarchy is roughly correct, particularly in a small, over-populated set of islands such as Britain, where it seems ridiculous to use large areas of land, often in overcrowded urban areas, and to have large, dirty lorries trundling to and fro, causing extra environmental pollution while distributing heavy-duty landfill waste among tips. Such an operation presents a cost to the public, particularly in large, urban conurbations. We are very much in favour of taking whatever measures we can to ensure that those costs are met by businesses in a way that affords better environmental solutions to waste disposal.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South (Ms Primarolo) also said that large-scale landfill sites that are inadequately managed can also pose a danger. The existence of methane in large landfill sites is well known. If sites are well managed and the necessary resources are provided, the methane can be a source of useful energy recovery; but if the resources are not provided, the site becomes dangerous to the public and to residents living around it. For those reasons, it makes sense to have a fiscal incentive that ensures that the costs to the local community and to commercial waste firms are addressed. We have tabled the amendment because the tax, as presently worked out, does not take proper account of those implications.
      There is an absence in the Finance Bill generally of complementary incentives from the other side of the waste industry to accompany the landfill levy. In the Environment Select Committee report on recycling, published on 6 July 1994, we concluded that we did not believe that there was a case for the imposition of a landfill levy at that time. Where a levy was to be imposed, however, we believed that it
      "should be imposed in order to encourage alternative forms of waste management."
      In order to encourage alternative forms of waste management, more effort needs to be taken to complement a landfill levy; to encourage other—
      The Chairman: Order. The hon. Lady knows that she is drifting far from the amendment, and we are possibly having a clause stand part debate. I hope that she can return to the amendment.
      Mrs. Jackson: Mr. Morris, I think that you will accept that my argument returns directly to the implications of the amendment.
      I am arguing that, unless there are alternative incentives for big waste disposal authorities and unless the costs of the landfill levy are counterbalanced immediately by an offset in employers' national insurance contributions, the costs will fall especially on local authorities, which have the overall duty of waste disposal in their areas, in such a way as to constrain their initiatives to promote or put resources into complementary types of waste disposal.
      The local authority in Sheffield in whose area I live has a magnificent reputation for incineration combined with heat recovery. It will be unable to continue developing such initiatives if that element of local authority spending
      156
      is constrained. The authority estimates that the landfill tax will take £900,000 of its budget in the first year and £1.8 million in the second year. The authority is worried because, to this day, it has received no assurances from the Department of Social Security of the amount or scale of the compensation that will come back to it in the employers' national insurance offset.
      Far from the landfill levy being part of an environmental policy that will help to redress the negative side of the waste hierarchy in Sheffield, the good schemes that the authority wants to promote may be constrained by the way in which the tax is levied. A great deal of material that goes into landfill could be used, with a small amount of research and development investment, for anaerobic composting, which could benefit Sheffield's large municipal parks. That is the type of complementary waste operation that may be difficult to cope with as a result of the landfill tax as it is presented at the moment.
      The steel industry will be affected. We received a document from the British Iron and Steel Producers Association saying that its initial calculations show that the annual direct gross cost of the landfill levy will be about £18 million and that the national insurance offset will only marginally reduce that. Steel is probably the industry best suited to recycling. I am very proud of the company Stocksbridge Engineering Steel in my constituency, and I am always amazed that its works transforms 10,000 tonnes of messy scrap metal into 12,500 tonnes of engineering steel for use in the aerospace and other specialised industries. That is accomplished in one week, and all the company's products are recycled from scrap metal.
      Stocksbridge Engineering Steel, as a major steel producer, simply cannot afford the landfill tax. According to its calculations, it will mean on-costs of 36p for every tonne of steel produced—which will amount to almost £200,000 a year. The firm wants certain elements of the levy to be reconsidered in view of the extra costs that will be imposed.
      For example, it requires the definition of waste to be clarified further. The firm wants to know which of its waste will be declared inert waste and which waste will be charged at £7 per tonne. Until it is clear about which of its waste will be charged at £2 per tonne and which will be charged at £7 per tonne, it will find it very difficult to plan and to finance its forward projections on the extra cost to the business. That is of particular concern when, as the amendment points out, firms are still unsure about the benefits that will accrue from national insurance contributions.
      There is a further cost and a further complication for the steel industry in areas such as South Yorkshire. Anyone who is familiar with that area will know that there is much derelict steel industry land and many empty factories in South Yorkshire. The technology has changed and, although the industry is not producing less special steel, it is producing it in very different ways in a much smaller area.
      The steel industry has been left with large areas of land which can be reclaimed only through landfill operations and it must dispose of its waste, while facing the added costs imposed by the landfill tax. The industry must also pay for the waste that is used to reclaim and redevelop many derelict sites, such as those in Rotherham at Templeborough which are owned by the firm that controls

      157
      Stocksbridge Engineering Steel in my constituency. The landfill tax would impose that second cost on the British steel industry, on top of the £200,000 that I have mentioned already.
      In addition, it is also unclear whether the disposal of material that is used in reclamation will be subject to landfill tax. I am sure that we will return to many of the issues when we discuss other clauses in Committee, but I think that it is important to raise the matters now in the Chamber. The firm is the largest employer by far in my constituency. Any issue that will cause the firm such financial concern—36p on-costs on every tonne of engineering steel that it produces—is serious. The firm supplies about 60 per cent. of the manufacturing sector with steel, so it will be a problem for manufacturing production nationwide.
      I am aware that there are other matters, such as the dredging issue, on which we will have further discussions. I have given the reasons that lead me to believe that the amendment should be considered seriously and supported. The Government have not thought through how the balance of the extra costs of the landfill levy will be complemented by the cuts in national insurance contributions.
      4.30 pm
      Mr. Paddy Tipping: I am pleased to speak to the amendment. I had the opportunity to talk about the landfill tax during the Budget debate, and I welcomed it. I still welcome the landfill tax, and I have now had the opportunity to consider it further. My support for it is still substantial, although I have some reservations about one or two issues.
      The importance of the landfill tax in the Budget is that it moves taxation from labour to environmental issues, such as pollution. That must be right, and I look forward to future Budgets pursuing that approach. I am, however, concerned that the landfill tax will come into effect on October 1996, but the discount on national insurance contributions will not come into effect until April 1997. That is the issue that amendment No. 5 addresses.
      I strongly believe that those two issues should be closely linked, and that there should be no gap between them. If the Government believe that we should switch taxation from labour to pollution, a clear manifestation of their support would be a timetable that coincided. At the moment, there is a clear six-month gap, and that is not acceptable.
      In essence, the aim of the policy is to tax pollution. I wish to examine that aim in relation to domestic waste producers—all of us who put our waste in dustbins. The policy as it stands does not provide the necessary linkage. Although it is a green policy, it is one of which no one will be aware. The ordinary householder will not be aware of the landfill tax, and that is a real weakness.
      Local authorities will face some difficulties, as some of my colleagues have already mentioned. It is clear that the landfill tax will cost local authorities more. The final figures have yet to be worked out, but the provisional figures seem to show that the additional cost for local authorities, which collect about 22 million tonnes of domestic household waste a year, will be about £154 million. There will be a reduction in national
      158
      insurance contributions of 0.2 per cent. Perhaps the Minister will tell us the level of wages that that national insurance discount will affect. I suspect that it will be about £10,000, so full-time employees will get the discount but part-timers will not.
      Nationally, the additional cost to local authorities will be £154 million, but the rebate on national insurance costs might be about £30 million. In other words, local authorities will face a net additional cost of something like £124 million. It is plain as a pikestaff that someone will have to pick up these costs; it seems to me that that "someone" will be the poor council tax payer.
      I am particularly concerned about my local authority in Nottinghamshire. Judging by the figures that it gave me just this morning, it seems that the county council disposes of 500,000 tonnes a year of household waste. I should like to praise local authorities, which sometimes do not get the praise that they deserve. Many years ago, there was a move in Nottinghamshire towards incineration. The Eastcroft incinerator disposes of an average 125,000 tonnes of domestic waste a year, leaving a substantial amount—375,000 tonnes—to go into landfill.
      I should like to ask the Minister whether the ash from the incinerator will be classified as inert material—an important point. The difference between a disposal cost of £7 a tonne and £2 a tonne—for inert material—can make a great deal of difference to council tax payers. Certain bodies such as the CBI have questioned how the categories into which waste is divided for the purposes of the £7 band and the £2 band are defined. I know that consultations are going on, but the guidelines eventually issued will have to be clearly understood by everyone. This, I am afraid, is yet another example of legislation being passed without the ground rules being clear, and that is not good practice.
      As I said, 375,000 tonnes of domestic waste go into landfill sites in Nottinghamshire.
      Mr. Tim Smith: Does that mean that no recycling at all is going on in Nottinghamshire? Would not the councils there be well advised to consider changing their behaviour, instead of just passing on all the extra tax to council tax payers?
      Mr. Tipping: Of course. Had he been listening, the hon. Gentleman would have heard me talk about the early construction of an incinerator in Nottinghamshire; it heats domestic and industrial properties throughout the city of Nottingham. The hon. Gentleman will also know of the work done by local authorities to recycle paper, glass, and so on. Obviously we should support all such work, but there remains the problem that not all domestic waste can be recycled in that way. A large amount will still go into landfill sites, as it does in Nottinghamshire.
      The cost to the local authority next year—a part year—will be £1.3 million, and in 1997–98 it will be £2.6 million. We may set the national insurance discount against that, but it amounts to a mere £130,000. There is clearly a large gap which has to be met by someone. I do not believe that local authorities will meet it; rather, it will be passed on to council tax payers.
      I know that local authority associations have taken up the matter recently with Ministers, particularly Ministers from the Department of the Environment, and I expect

      159
      that there will soon be a discussion in the House about the financial settlement for local authorities next year. I hope that the Minister will talk to his colleagues in other Departments about this issue, because there is a strong case for examining the capping levels that have been put on local authorities, particularly those that are also waste disposal authorities—usually, county councils.
      I look forward to Ministers from the Department of the Environment coming to the House and explaining to us, perhaps next week—
      The Chairman: Order. Not this afternoon, when we are discussing the Finance Bill.
      Mr. Tipping: I am grateful for your advice, Mr. Morris.
      Perhaps Ministers will come to the House shortly—next week or perhaps the week after—to say how the gap between the extra costs to local authorities and the discounts on national insurance contributions, which is what the amendment is about, will be met. I very much hope that the Government will listen to the voice of local authorities on that issue and consider relaxing the cap.
      The landfill tax is a potential tax on coal. Electricity generators burn coal. I do not believe that they burn enough. I would like them to burn more and to keep the pits in Nottinghamshire and throughout the country going. The consequence of burning coal is that waste—fly ash—is collected at the end. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mrs. Jackson) spoke about reclamation. Fly ash has been used for many years to reclaim sites. There are areas of dereliction all over the industrial midlands and the north. I would be keen for us to examine ways to discount some element of the taxation on fly ash. It is an issue not just for coal mining areas but, for example, for Bedfordshire, where clay has been extracted from the ground to produce bricks, and, gradually, the pits are being filled. If there is an environmental benefit from that, it deserves careful consideration during the passage of the Bill.
      I ask the Minister to confirm that fly ash will be classed as inert waste and taxed at the rate of £2 per tonne rather than £7 per tonne. That is an important issue, as it is eventually a tax on consumers. Although there will be some discount for the generators—for example, PowerGen and National Power—through national insurance, that will not go any way towards meeting the cost for disposing of fly ash. I have figures from both generators. I shall not discuss them this afternoon, but I know that they have written to Ministers on that point.
      It is clear that the disposal of fly ash will cost the generators tens of thousands of pounds. My real fear is that, in a competitive energy market, the coal industry, which has declined rapidly over recent years, will once again be put under a very real threat. It is a serious issue, at which the Minister should look. It is linked to the discounting of national insurance charges, and it is not sufficient to make up the extra cost.
      There are many other issues that I would like to pursue on the landfill tax, but the appropriate place to do, that is upstairs in Standing Committee. I am concerned about fly tipping. We need to look at that. We need to look at best disposal practice in landfill sites. The landfill tax—I shall not over-egg the case—could lead to difficulties in that regard.
      160
      I ask the Minister to consider having a de minimis rule for small operators. As the Bill stands, all operators will have to comply with the legislation.
      I am still a supporter of the landfill tax. I am an ardent supporter of green taxation. The points that I make are meant to be helpful to the Minister. I look forward to pursuing them during the next few weeks.
      4.45 pm
      Mr. Ian Pearson: I confess that I am relatively new to the concept of landfill taxes. Almost two years ago, before I was elected to the House, I was a member of a team that visited Slovakia with the president of the Institute of Wastes Management and a person who had a doctorate in composting. We discussed landfill taxes, and the conclusion that the experts reached was that, in the majority of cases, burying rubbish, rather than other methods higher up in the waste disposal hierarchy, was the best solution for the United Kingdom.
      I shall make a general observation about the detail behind clause 36. As with many other clauses, much of its effect is hidden in secondary legislation, which will appear later and might get less scrutiny than it deserves. There are three Treasury orders, one Customs and Excise order and 15 sets of Customs and Excise regulations on landfill tax to come.
      A press release at the time of the Budget stated that there would be consultation on the secondary legislation in the spring of 1996, and that the instruments would be laid during the summer. It is not clear to me whether that process will include exposure of draft regulations—the provisions of the Finance Bill were not released in draft—so I would appreciate clarification from the Minister on that, and on whether there will be draft regulations for businesses to comment on.
      Like other Opposition Members, I do not object in principle to the concept of a landfill tax—a number of us have supported green taxes for a considerable time—and I do not object to the method by which the tax has been raised. I pay tribute to the Government for listening to the voice of industry and moving away from an ad valorem basis of taxation towards cost per tonne. By doing that, we are falling into line with landfill tax regimes in Europe.
      At the moment, as I understand it—the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—five European countries have landfill taxes, and all of them have weight-based regimes. Denmark is the most expensive, with a tax of £20.67 per tonne. In France, depending on whether waste is municipal or hazardous industrial, there is a charge of £2.50 or between £5 and £8. The proposed regime seems to be in accordance with that. In Germany, the charge can vary from £10 to £41 for hazardous industrial waste. Whether there should be a higher band for hazardous waste is a potential issue. In Belgium—
      The Chairman: Order. What the hon. Gentleman is saying is most interesting, but he must relate his comments to the rebate on employers' national insurance contributions. That might be in order, but just recounting the facts is not.
      Mr. Pearson: Thank you, Mr. Morris.
      When considering the burdens on business—the Government have made great play of the fact that there is a matching national insurance contributions rebate to

      161
      ensure that there is no burden on business—we must ensure that there is a level playing field. Other European countries do not have, and never have had, a matching rebate. What is more, a number of European countries do not force businesses to pay landfill tax. The Government should consider establishing a level playing field across Europe for landfill taxation. I hope that the Minister and his colleagues will press for a common European standard on landfill tax.
      The Environmental Services Association, formerly the National Association of Waste Disposal Companies, represents companies that provide waste management and related environmental services. It is the lead body and it shares some of my concerns. It says that it
      "fully supports the development of a sustainable waste management policy, but is concerned that isolated fiscal instruments may not be the best method of attaining such a policy in accord with the best available technology not entailing excessive cost … principles."
      The tax appears to be a one-off, with a matching cut in contributions, as the amendment says. Environmental taxation is not seen in the round. Partly as a result of that—I hope that I am not misquoting him—Peter Neill, the chairman of the ESA, said:
      "Waste producers—both domestic and commercial—must be aware that this is a tax which will ultimately be paid by themselves."
      That is a salient point of which we should be aware.
      The views of businesses that emerged from the consultation exercise that began in March 1995 are interesting, and I am surprised that the Government have not supported some of them. According to the official summary of responses to the consultation paper that was published on 1 September, of the 249 responses expressing a view on the Government's landfill tax and their plan to cut employers' national insurance contributions, only 25 were in favour and 173 were against. The Government argue that that imbalance arises because, generally, the businesses that responded were more likely to be net losers than net gainers.
      There are clearly winners and losers, but the real reason for that overwhelming opposition is that many employers in the industry recognise that there is no real link between national insurance contributions rebates and reductions, which are basically to do with industrial policy, and an environmental policy, of which landfill tax is one small, isolated, example. It is difficult not to come to the conclusion that the landfill tax proposal and its matching national insurance contributions reduction is a con trick, and that the Government have simply found a new wheeze for raising additional taxation, which has been adopted by five other European countries.
      Mr. Tim Smith: That is nonsense. The whole point is that, although the tax is new, it will not raise any extra revenue. The money is being handed back to industry and commerce. One of the greatest tax burdens on industry and commerce is national insurance contributions, because they constitute a levy on jobs. Why does not the hon. Gentleman welcome the reduction?
      Mr. Pearson: I welcome the reduction in employers' national insurance contributions, but I am saying that that reduction is a sensible measure that the Government should and would have wanted anyway. I see no
      162
      compelling reason for a link between the two. If something is worth doing, it is worth doing for its own sake, and that applies both to environmental taxes and to reductions in national insurance charges.
      In addition, there is no guarantee that the 0.2 per cent. reduction will hold in the medium term. If, as seems likely, employers modify their behaviour and, as a result, make less use of landfill, the revenue raised from the landfill tax will decline. The Red Book projections show a surplus yield to the Exchequer through to 1998–99. They say that, in 1996–97, landfill tax will produce a net £110,000 above national insurance contributions reductions. In 1997–98, landfill tax is forecast to bring in £450 million, and employers' national insurance contributions reductions are forecast to cost the Exchequer some £495,000. It is only in 1998–99 that there will be a cumulative surplus yield to the Exchequer. I therefore remain to be convinced of the importance of the link between national insurance contributions and the landfill tax.
      Contaminated land is an issue of great importance to my constituency, Dudley, West, in the black country. I have had representations from the Building Employers Confederation and a number of other organisations which are concerned about the effect of the landfill tax on them. Much redevelopment of contaminated land—I have some major developers in my constituency—is undertaken through Government grant regimes.
      Government grant is allocated only on the basis that the projects would not proceed unless such money was forthcoming. The landfill tax makes no exemption for contaminated land, so the Government will have to pay out more in grant in order to redevelop the land, or developers will decide that they do not want to proceed with much needed urban regeneration. Exempting waste taken from contaminated land from landfill tax is worth considering.
      The tax will also affect my local metropolitan borough council, which currently disposes of 120,000 tonnes of waste per annum. It does not take a mathematician to calculate that, at a rate of £7 per tonne, the cost to the authority will be £840,000 a year. Estimates suggest that the reduction in national insurance contributions will benefit the authority to the tune of about £300,000 but, as a result of the landfill tax, it will be about £500,000 out of pocket, and the cost will almost inevitably be passed to the consumer.
      5 pm
      The authority is currently engaged in discussions with a number of, companies in connection with an incineration contract that it wants to let. I suspect that there will be a strong trend among authorities that are major users of landfill sites towards incineration. No one would object to that if the incinerators conformed to European standards—environmental benefits would result—but it is feared that they will not.
      At present, my local authority makes considerable use of recycling. In the event of a long-term contract with an incineration company, it will try to deliver the best possible deal to council tax payers, but it will lose money. The Government should act, perhaps by means of the "other services" part of the standard spending assessment.
      On the one hand, small businesses will be subject to the landfill tax; on the other, they will benefit from national insurance contribution rebates. The tax will, however, be

      163
      subject to VAT, which will be charged in accordance with section 19 of the Value Added Tax Act 1994: landfill tax will be deductible in the computation of profits or income for direct tax purposes. The Government should consider exempting small businesses that will have to wade through all the regulations and Treasury orders—and pay extra VAT on their landfill tax.
      I think that landfill tax should be aligned with VAT as far as possible. I understand that the Law Society recommended that, and that operators who are not registrable for VAT should be exempt from the landfill tax.
      One of the penalties of the tax is the imposition of a separate interest charge on tax shown on returns but not paid by the due date. I have often spoken in the House about the effect of late payment on small businesses, but the House should note that the Bill proposes a complete departure from previous tax arrangements. We are replacing the default surcharge regime with a penalty interest rate. The compounded interest rate of 10 per cent. over the standard rate could rapidly add up to a large sum: with an interest rate of 7 per cent., after three years, the penalty interest could amount to some 66 per cent. of the tax. If it is good enough for the Government to introduce legislation on late payment to raise money for themselves, surely it should be good enough for them to do the same for businesses.
      Mr. Austin Mitchell: I support the amendment, as it would delay the onset of the tax, but it would be more sensible to levy a zero rate for inert materials on land disposal sites, because they do not cause the environmental problems that might justify a landfill tax. A zero rate would allow our chemical industries to compete with those elsewhere in Europe.
      The Government have introduced the tax as an opportunistic way of raising more money, and they have done so in their usual fashion. Admittedly there has been consultation, but they have ignored the arguments for zero rating for inert materials, thus cutting across long-standing contracts and investments made years before and damaging the competitive position of the firms that made those investments. It is extraordinary that a so-called business man's Government should make no allowance for investment decisions made some time ago, and should suddenly slap on a tax that will penalise British firms that are in competition with European firms that do not have to pay such a penalty.
      I raise the issue because the tax will have a serious effect on Tioxide, a Grimsby firm which produces titanium dioxide.
      The Chairman: Order. Is the hon. Gentleman going to relate his remarks to—
      Mr. Mitchell rose—
      The Chairman: Order. "Order" means "sit down". I hope that the hon. Gentleman will relate his remarks to employers' national insurance contributions. Perhaps he did not hear the hon. Member for Bristol, South (Ms Primarolo) move the amendment, and therefore missed the significance of that issue, which he has not yet mentioned.
      Mr. Mitchell: I mentioned it in my introduction, Mr. Morris. Tioxide is a major contributor to Grimsby's
      164
      economy, but it will not benefit massively from a reduction in employers' national insurance contributions because it is a capital-intensive, rather than an employment-intensive, industry. The reduction is one way of palliating the blow, but I think that we should do that in other ways.
      I was about to cite the decisions that Tioxide made. The main waste product in the production of titanium dioxide is sulphuric acid. Disposal is a problem. There are two possible treatments of the waste: it can be concentrated and recycled, or neutralised to form gypsum. Tioxide decided to comply with the European directive on waste disposal, and opt for the neutralisation treatment. That commercial decision was taken on the ground that gypsum, an inert material, could be disposed of in two ways—first, as an ingredient in plasterboard manufacturing further along the Humber bank and, secondly, in an ex-British Steel ironstone quarry at Roxby, close to the Grimsby site. It planned to fill in the quarry there with the inert material, and the site was to have been made available for various leisure uses once it had been filled in—a sensible procedure.
      As a result of that commercial decision, which was taken some time ago, when there were no proposals for a landfill tax in exchange for a compensating reduction in employers' national insurance contributions, Tioxide went in for a two-stage neutralisation system at the Grimsby site. Its substantial investment was tailored to produce gypsum, partly for plasterboard manufacture and partly for disposal in the quarry. The Roxby quarry landfill site was set up with a licence to take only gypsum or similar waste. Tioxide negotiated a direct rail link to the site to minimise disamenity and an agreement to convert the site into a nature park once it had been filled in.
      Tioxide took a commercial decision in a competitive titanium dioxide market. Its competitive position will not necessarily be improved substantially by a reduction in employers' national insurance contributions, but it will be changed by the impact of the tax on landfill, the method by which it decided to dispose of the material.
      The neutralisation system produced an investment at Grimsby of £27 million. That major decision and investment is now called into question by the sudden imposition of a landfill tax, against which Tioxide has protested. The employers' national insurance contribution reduction is minimal, and inadequate compensation, because competitors in Europe operate on the basis of zero-rating for landfill disposal of such material.
      Tioxide was complying with the industry-specific European Community directive that aims to harmonise competition by applying similar environmental constraints to every producer in the sector. The idea of that directive was to reduce liquid effluents and increase solid waste effluents. It therefore encourages firms to use landfill. When European competitors do that, they have the benefit of no landfill tax or of zero-rating for the inert gypsum material that they produce, but Tioxide is suddenly faced with a decision to tax the product in this country.
      Tioxide has done its best to meet European requirements, but the Government have come in, with little consideration for the realities, the scale of the investment or the competitive position of the firm, and slapped on a tax, proposing compensation by way of a reduction in employers' national insurance contributions. That compensation is not sufficient, because this industry is not labour-intensive.

      165
      Not much can be done with the material except place it in a landfill site. Tioxide has made a long-standing arrangement that will result in a nature park. It is in intense competition with Europe. It has complied with the EC directives and now, suddenly, the Government have blundered in and decided to tax in this fashion. It is typical of the Government's lack of concern for the competitive position of British industry that they can suddenly slap on such requirements—thinking that they are giving some compensation when they are not—and not take the competitive position into account.
      The Government should approach this matter by asking: what are the damaging consequences of this material? Is there methane gas? No, there is not. Is it inert? Yes, it is. The problems that would justify the taxation do not arise in relation to this material. It should, therefore, be zero-rated. The national insurance contribution concession is not enough. I ask the Minister to tell me what concessions can be made to compensate a firm such as Tioxide—which has headed into long-standing contracts and commitments and which has invested £27 million in the treatment of waste—for this sudden blow and sudden change in its competitive position vis-a-vis European competitors.
      5.15 pm
      The Paymaster General (Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory): The amendment has given opportunities for a fairly general debate on the landfill tax. May I respond to some of the points raised and correct some of the misapprehensions that exist, especially among Opposition Members?
      The landfill tax will essentially do two things—encourage good environmental practice and raise money that will be used to cut the main rate of employers' national insurance contributions. It will therefore help employment and the environment at the same time. The hon. Member for Dudley, West (Mr. Pearson) is right: we are not alone in introducing such a tax. It already exists in Denmark, the Netherlands, France and parts of Belgium and I understand that the Italians are proposing to introduce such a tax. In general, the rates of those taxes are above what we are proposing.
      Mr. Austin Mitchell: Is it not a fact that there is zero rating for the disposal of inert materials such as the gypsum that I referred to?
      Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I understand that that is not true. There are a number of specific reliefs and exemptions in some countries, but they do not, as I understand it, cover entirely the point that the hon. Gentleman raised, but I will touch on the case that he instanced.
      This is not an environmental European tax. We have no desire to harmonise such tax rates throughout the European Community. We are introducing it in this country because it suits British conditions and it is good for our environment. Also, we can relieve taxation on employment in the way that I have mentioned.
      It is not the first time that the British Government have used taxes to encourage better environmental practice, but this is the first tax that will be introduced specifically for environmental purposes. We are using an economic instrument to achieve an environmental goal.
      166
      The objects of the tax are to ensure that landfill waste is properly priced and that the charges that are borne by waste producers reflect the environmental harm that is caused. Landfill operators will bear the tax and will have to account for it to Customs, but they will pass on additional costs to those who produce the waste. It is important that the disposal costs that those producers face reflect the full environmental impact of landfill.
      That environmental impact can take a number of different forms—the production of methane, which, as the Committee knows, is a greenhouse gas that contributes to global warming; or pollution of groundwater. It may not have a direct environmental effect—it could be in the category of nuisance to local residents. Committee members who have landfill sites in their constituencies will know that landfill operations frequently cause problems of dust, dirt, noise, litter, seagulls and traffic movements. It is important that all those 'external costs are captured and attributed to the waste producer.
      Ms Primarolo: The right hon. Gentleman said that the site operators would pay the tax—which we know—and that they would pass that on to the waste producers, presumably through increased charges. We will look at the mechanisms for that in Standing Committee. Local authorities have a responsibility to dispose of other people's waste and industrial waste, and they collect waste within their boundaries. What mechanism does he envisage to ensure that, in those circumstances, the waste producers bear the increased charge? Local authorities have the responsibility to collect but they may be capped or restricted on spending—and they have not yet been told by the Government how they are expected to cope with the loss of revenue resulting from the extra charges that they will have to pay.
      Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: The landfill operator will bear the costs and then pass them on to waste producers. I shall deal with local authorities later in my remarks. However, the local authority—a district council, for example—will be in the best position to influence the amount of waste that is landfilled and the amount diverted to recycling or other waste streams. It will be in the best position to take the necessary corrective action.
      Sir Roger Moate: Waste disposal diverted into recycling or incineration is more expensive than landfill—even more expensive than landfill plus the landfill tax. Come what may, local authorities will face an extra cost for disposal, which must be paid for by somebody—by the local authority, the national taxpayer or the council tax payer. If we impose a green tax, someone has to pay it. That charge will have to be met in the coming year by some local authorities. Can my right hon. Friend give an estimate of the total revenue that will come from local authorities this year and next year, which will have to be collected from local council tax payers?
      Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: My hon. Friend is not entirely correct in saying that alternative waste disposal such as recycling is necessarily more expensive than landfill. For example, with aluminium cans the industry will melt them down to make new aluminium products. That waste stream is, in some cases, cheaper than landfilling that metal. Indeed, there are already a number of good and self-sustaining recycling schemes, even without the

      167
      incentive of a landfill tax for material dumped into holes in the ground. The tax will give a further impetus to what is already happening with recycling.
      I repeat the point that capturing those external costs, whether they be pollution or a form of nuisance to residents and others, is an important consideration. It will encourage the waste producers, whoever they may be, to look for ways to produce less waste and to reuse and recycle more waste if they cannot avoid producing it. We know that there is substantial scope for businesses and others to adopt better waste management practices. The tax will give them a precise incentive to continue to do so.
      In other words, what we are proposing will reinforce the existing policy of sustainable waste management, which was set out in considerable detail in the White Paper published by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment last month. The concept in the White Paper was of a waste hierarchy, headed by waste minimisation. The most desirable aim must be not to produce so much waste. Lower down the hierarchy is re-using waste.
      Further down again comes the recovery of waste, which can include recycling, composting and energy recovery from incineration. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mrs. Jackson), who is no longer in her place, was under the misapprehension that the landfill tax would somehow act as a disincentive or inhibition on composting. In fact, the reverse is the case, as the hierarchy shows. If waste can be composted, it will avoid landfill tax. At the bottom of the waste hierarchy is disposal, which includes landfill.
      The landfill tax will be an important means of moving waste up the hierarchy and away from landfill. The hon. Member for Bristol, South (Ms Primarolo) said, bafflingly, that the tax would send a signal that landfill was the most desirable means of disposal. That calls into question her understanding of the whole principle of the tax because the reverse is the case. By taxing landfill, we are providing an incentive to move to other, more environmentally benign means of dealing with waste.
      Ms Primarolo: A study for the Department of the Environment undertaken by Coopers and Lybrand showed that, with a levy on landfill even as high as £20 per tonne, recycling would still remain a relatively unattractive financial option and that the use of the tax alone would not be enough to develop alternatives. Therefore, essentially the Government are saying that landfill is all right or that options that are worse than landfill but cheaper are also all right.
      Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: The hon. Lady is now arguing for a much higher rate of tax, which can only double the anxiety expressed by some of my hon. Friends. If she is suggesting that the modest tax we are proposing will not boost recycling in the way that we wish, that is an argument for a higher charge. We do not accept that. Although the tax will not overnight create vast quantities of recycled waste, that might be a good thing. By flooding the market with recycled products, we might kill the very process that we are trying to promote. We believe that the tax rates of £2 and £7 will at least nudge the market towards a greater use of recycled materials and therefore move waste generally up the hierarchy that I described earlier.
      Mr. Winston Churchill: Would not the penal rates of taxation on landfill favoured by the
      168
      Opposition—as, indeed, they favour penal rates of taxation in almost every area—encourage cowboy tipping?
      Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: That is a serious point, which my hon. Friend was right to highlight. All that we have heard this afternoon is reaffirmation that the Labour party is a high taxer by nature. When it sees a tax, its instinct is to raise it.
      When my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor proposed the landfill tax in his 1994 Budget, he made it clear that he wished to consult widely on the details. That will include secondary legislation—to answer the specific point raised by the hon. Member for Dudley, West. In fact, the details in the Bill are the fruits of the consultation exercise. We thought long and hard about the rates and we also consulted outside interests. The tax will be levied per tonne. The standard rate, which will apply to most waste, will be £7 per tonne.
      Following the persuasive representations that were made during the consultation exercise, we decided that there will be a lower rate of £2 a tonne for inactive or inert waste. Examples of this are soil, sand, gravel, brick, concrete, glass and so on. These do not decay to any significant extent and have much less potential to pollute the atmosphere or groundwater with gas.
      It remains important to provide an incentive to recycle materials such as aggregates in the construction industry, and these should be taxed in most cases at the lower £2 rate. Taxing such materials will encourage a reduction in the amount of aggregates that are extracted from the ground and will encourage people to seek ways of recycling them wherever feasible.
      The differential between the £7 and the £2 rates reflects the different environmental impacts of different types of waste, as well as the arguments that were put to us during the consultation exercise. Customs and Excise is now consulting on the exact details and types of inert waste to be involved.
      Mr. Tipping rose—
      5.30 pm
      Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I shall anticipate the hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Tipping). The question of fly ash is being investigated, and I cannot give a definitive answer at the Dispatch Box as to whether fly ash is genuinely inert or whether it includes some form of pollutant that would put it into the £7 limit. I will make further inquiries about the matter.
      Mr. Tipping: I am grateful for the Minister's assurance that the issue is at least being examined. Could he turn his mind to the issue of ash from incinerated domestic waste? Will that be classed as inert? Is there not a case for the classification of soil, for which there should be no charge at all? I make this point not because I am a high taxer, but because I want the tax to be practical and efficient.
      Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: The residue from the incineration of domestic waste will bear the landfill tax, but as it has been reduced in volume considerably from the initial waste stream, the overall quantity of household waste will be taxed less if it has been through an incinerator. That, in turn, gives exactly the right signal

      169
      to those involved in the incineration of domestic waste, particularly if that includes energy recovery—as it does near the constituency of the hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Tipping).
      My hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) asked me about some specific cases that do not relate to the amendment. As a result, these cases will probably be better examined upstairs in the Committee, of which, I am happy to say, my hon. Friend will be a member.
      I ought to make the general point that, even where alternatives to landfilling do not presently exist or where the alternatives are not economic at present, it is important to ensure that the environmental costs of landfilling are properly reflected in the charges paid. That will, in turn, encourage innovation and research into alternatives to landfilling that may not presently exist, and so promote in the future the environmental objectives of the tax to which I have referred.
      Much the same argument applies to the point raised by the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell), although I am not fully familiar with the industrial process that he described. I think that the hon. Gentleman said that the first waste product would be sulphuric acid, which would surely be a high-grade, dangerous product to dispose of and would incur in all circumstances a higher charge. The firm which he instanced had put in a process to render that waste inert in the form of gypsum and, in so doing, move it from a higher charge to a lower one and save itself an equivalent sum of money. I will have to investigate the point made by the hon. Gentleman, particularly as I may stray out of order if I continue on that subject.
      Mr. Austin Mitchell: I am grateful for the Minister's promise of an investigation. To facilitate such an investigation, I should make clear the point that I was making. There are two methods of waste treatment, and Tioxide chose the second method—to neutralise it to produce gypsum—because of the availability of a British Steel quarry. The infill of gypsum would convert that quarry into a nature park.
      That was a commercial decision affecting the company's competitive situation, but the company was not warned by the Government that there was to be a tax on inert material disposed of in this fashion. The company faces competition from other European countries, primarily Germany, where there is no such landfill tax, and France, where inert materials such as gypsum are zero-rated. The Bill will seriously and adversely affect the competitive situation of this firm. Why do the Government not zero-rate inert materials such as gypsum that are environmentally benign?
      Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I have commented on that matter, but I shall look again at the specific point that the hon. Gentleman has raised.
      I had better get on more directly to the Opposition amendment, which affects the timings. The tax will come into effect in October of this year, and in a full year will yield about £450 million. That is an approximate calculation, but it is the best we have at present. Because revenue is collected quarterly in arrears, the yield in this financial year will be about £110 million.
      170
      The amendment leaves the implementation date in place, but seeks to bring forward the announced cut in national insurance contributions to the same date. This is another enormous uncosted commitment by the Labour party, and blows another hole in Labour's claims to be the party of fiscal rectitude. Labour has landed an enormous bill on to the desk of the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown), who is very anxious not to play the old game of giving money away with one hand while putting up taxes with the other to cover the difference.
      While Labour has made a big and uncosted commitment, we nevertheless rejoice when it repents of its old high-tax policies. I remind the Committee that in 1979, employers paid 13.5 per cent. in national insurance contributions, including the infamous national insurance surcharge, which was a direct tax on jobs. We have brought the rate down to 10.2 per cent., and it is less than that for lower-paid employees. That is one of the important reasons why we have the lowest non-wage labour costs of any major European economy, and correspondingly low unemployment.
      The revenue from the landfill tax will enable us to cut the rate further to 10 per cent. But if Labour really wants to emulate our policies on employment generation, it must adopt all of them—including our rejection of the damaging European social chapter with its possible consequences, and the minimum wage, which would deal a body blow to low earners. I welcome Labour's support for a cut in national insurance contributions, and we will do that as soon as practicable.
      The mid-year changes would impose a very significant compliance burden on the businesses which pay it. We are not talking about the 1,400 or so businesses that will be paying the landfill tax, but of the millions of taxpayers who pay national insurance contributions. Those taxpayers would all be affected by any mid-year switch in the rate.
      There is another—I think, better—reason for rejecting the amendment, which is that it requires a matching cut that would require us to match the revenue from the landfill tax, penny for penny, with cuts to national insurance contributions. That is considerably less generous than what we are proposing. The tax will raise about £450 million in a full year, but the national insurance contribution cut will cost £500 million in its first full year. The year after that, it will be more generous still and cost some £120 million more than the revenue from the landfill tax.
      Sir Roger Moate: That is an important point, particularly in relation to the burden on local authorities. If my right hon. Friend is correct in saying that the national insurance rebate reduction will more than offset the additional costs to be borne by local authorities collecting or paying the landfill tax, does that therefore mean that there is no justification for local authorities—Labour local authorities in particular—suggesting that the tax is a reason for increasing the council tax this year?
      Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: There are bound to be winners and losers. Not all businesses or types of business will unequivocally be winners, because they may incur landfill tax charges that are greater than any benefit that they receive in national insurance contributions. That is true for local authorities as a whole.

      171
      I should like to say another word about local authorities—particularly to attempt to answer some of the points that have been made by the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sir J. Molyneaux). I am aware that the Environmental Protection Act 1990—which brought into effect a chain of waste management regulations in England, Wales and, subsequently, in Scotland—does not yet apply to Northern Ireland. As I understand it, starting this year, the Northern Ireland Office will introduce equivalent regulations and environmental requirements.
      I can make a general point about Northern Ireland that is similar in England and Wales: local authorities are in a good position to influence the amount of landfill tax that they pay because they are the movers and shakers in the recycling, composting and incineration industries as they affect domestic waste. Many local authorities have already made investments in those industries, often with Government support. Indeed, the Government have given or have made available some £50 million-worth of grants to local authorities for investment in recycling.
      Mr. Tipping: I accept two of the points that the Minister has made. First, resources have been made available to local authorities through credit approvals and the rest; but more needs to be done. Secondly, local authorities are actively making an attempt in this sphere. The bottom line is that landfill is substantially cheaper than recycling. How can we encourage more recycling when the cost difference between the two schemes is so wide?
      Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: We can bridge that gap only by an enormous increase in the landfill tax, which we will not contemplate for many reasons—but the tax helps. The tax sends the right price signal and gives the right incentive to move more of the waste up the waste hierarchy, away from landfilling, towards other means of waste management, including recycling. Local authorities in all parts of the United Kingdom are in a good position to take advantage of that. On grounds of practicality, the cost of administration and because it is of benefit to the great majority of businesses, I urge the Committee to reject the amendment.
      Ms Primarolo: The Paymaster General has made some interesting criticisms of our amendment. He attacked it because he said that it was a spending commitment and it reflected our desire to increase the cost of landfill. That is not the case.
      I wonder, and the Committee may wonder, whether the Paymaster General knows when the election will be because, even if what he said were true, for it to be a spending commitment we would have to be in power by April, when the mechanism comes into effect. At the moment, I do not think that we will be. The Paymaster General then stood on his head by saying that our amendment, if it goes through, will be less generous and that there will be less money available to assist in landfill. It might have been better had the Paymaster General stuck to the amendment rather than trying to make the rather dubious political points that he made.
      5.45 pm
      Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: To avoid any misunderstanding, let me clearly spell out the fact that the hon. Lady's amendment would bring forward the date of
      172
      the national insurance cut to 1 October this year. In the current financial year, that would cost an extra £210 million. That is why I say that the Labour amendment is spendthrift and uncosted.
      Our proposals are more generous in the round because—unlike an insistence that we match the cut, penny for penny, to what is raised in future by landfill tax—after the present year and in future financial years, we will give away more in national insurance contribution cuts than we will raise by landfill tax. That is all taken into account in the published Budget arithmetic.
      Ms Primarolo: I am fascinated to hear the Paymaster General describe the words of the Chancellor of the Exchequer as spendthrift because the amendment reflects the Chancellor's commitment on matching finance from the employers' national insurance contribution that he made in his two Budget statements literally word-for-word. The Paymaster General is still trying to have it both ways: one minute he says that we are spending money and the next minute that we are not spending enough.
      Let us return to the serious debate about the amendment. The Paymaster General has still not explained to the Committee why the original proposals and the statements made to the Chancellor said that matching cuts in the main rate of employers' national insurance contribution would be made. He has not explained why there is the delay, and he has not adequately explained how local authorities will be compensated for increased charges if they fall on the local authorities as a result of the imposition of this charge. In particular, he has not explained how that will affect local authorities that are in serious financial difficulties, regardless of whether they are Labour or Conservative-controlled, although I realise that there are not many Tory-controlled authorities left.
      In relation to the national insurance contribution mechanism being used for matching finance, the Paymaster General did not give an undertaking that the mechanism would definitely be in operation in future years. In moving the amendment, I made it clear from the Dispatch Box that an annual decision is taken on national insurance contributions. There is no clear guarantee in the proposals that that mechanism will be permanent or will last for as long as the landfill tax.
      Many of my hon. Friends have made it clear that we are concerned not only about the tax's impact on local authorities but about its impact on business and the possible effect of distorting waste management away from the laudable objectives that the Government initially put before us. It is incredible that the sugar beet industry, for instance, will have to pay to put topsoil that has been removed from sugar beet back on to the ground. [Interruption.] If hon. Members wish to intervene, I should be happy to let them. The Paymaster General gave a wide-ranging response to the debate and it seems reasonable that, as I stuck to the amendment in moving it, I should be able to reflect on some of the points that he made before we debate clause stand part.
      The tax takes an inert material such as topsoil and charges an industry for putting it in a hole in the ground. The Paymaster General tells us that that is a sensible environment strategy. We do not accept that.
      Our amendment seeks only to take a lead from the Chancellor of the Exchequer—something, admittedly, that we do not do very often. We sought to take him as a man

      173
      of his word in the two statements that he made, which were reinforced by one from the Secretary of State for the Environment, and put what he said into the Bill. That point has not been answered by the Paymaster General.
      I am tempted to go beyond the amendment, but I shall withhold my remarks until the clause stand part debate. We will withdraw the amendment but because of our dissatisfaction, we intend to vote against the clause. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Mrs. Ann Winterton: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 24, line 35, at end add—
      (4) A disposal is not a taxable disposal if the material disposed of consists entirely of soil derived from the processing of agricultural produce.'.
      The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Janet Fookes): With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 2, in page 24, line 35, at end add—
      '(4) A disposal is not a taxable disposal if the material disposed of consists entirely of dredgings.
      (5) For the purposes of subsection (4) "dredgings" means material forming part of or projecting from the bed of—

      (a) any river, canal or other watercourse (whether natural or artificial), or

      (b) any dock or harbour (whether natural or artificial) which is removed by whatever means.'.

      Mrs. Winterton: The amendments raise important issues that should be considered by the Government. The landfill tax is designed to encourage the reduction of wastes. All hon. Members approve of that. However, there are some anomalies that need to be aired and that I hope my hon. Friend the Minister will consider.
      The return of uncontaminated soil from agricultural produce, especially from the sugar beet industry, to landfill sites in the area whence it came—merely returning soil to soil—should not be taxable. That case is especially valid because one of the factors that causes the industry's inability to dispose of soil is the restrictions that have been agreed with officials to prevent the spread of rhizomania.
      As many hon. Members know, when sugar beet is harvested, some soil adheres to it. In the harvest of, for example, 8 million or 9 million tonnes of sugar beet, approximately 500,000 to 1 million tonnes of soil will also be delivered to the processor, depending on the weather conditions of the season—whether the ground is wet and heavy. In general, the proportion of soil delivered with beet has declined in the British sugar beet industry as it has developed improved on-farm cleaning methods, which must be welcomed. They have resulted in some of the lowest proportions of topsoil delivered with beet in Europe. In France, for example, the proportion of topsoil delivered with beet can be as much as 30 per cent.
      When sugar beet is processed, the topsoil is collected separately and conditioned before being sold on for a variety of uses, including horticultural and landscaping work, other recreational amenities, improvements to agricultural land, civil engineering projects and the
      174
      capping of landfills. The industry has worked hard to develop markets for the topsoil, and the long-term aim is for all sugar industry topsoil to go to such markets.
      In the past, the topsoil delivered with sugar beet was returned to the growing regions whence it came, but this is no longer possible because of the need to control a soil-borne root disease of sugar beet called rhizomania, which entered Britain from the continent. As part of a control policy agreed with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, topsoil can no longer be returned to beet-growing farms. That has meant that, until alternative markets are developed for the topsoil—which, at present, cannot be marketed—it has to be returned to landfill sites. In 1995, one company involved in the industry sent approximately 500,000 tonnes to nine landfill sites owned and operated by that company.
      The intention of the tax is to encourage industries to be more efficient and produce less waste. As the beet industry has done a lot to reduce the quantity of soil leaving farms, the effect of the tax will be merely to increase costs, which have been estimated at between £1 million and £2 million extra annually for the industry, depending on the quantity of soil to be disposed of in a particular year.
      To summarise, the return of uncontaminated soil that is representative of a region is merely the return of soil to soil and surely cannot be held to be waste disposal. Indeed, if all the soil could be removed from beet on the farms of origin, there would be no question of attempting to label the soil as a waste. The application of a plant health and hygiene measure to control the spread of an agricultural disease should not be used to charge an extra tax.
      The application of the tax where the soil is actively used in the environmental management of a landfill site—for example, in forming the sandwich layers between waste in a landfill or in the final capping of a landfill—will increase the costs of operating landfill sites to no good purpose because the soil will still be needed. Up to a fifth of the contents of a landfill can be soil. Surely it is only equitable that, where soil is placed in a landfill site that is owned and operated by an individual company, and where there is no public facility and no cost to the public, it should be exempted from what is proposed.
      I have a constituency interest in respect of amendment No. 2(5)(a), involving the extraction of brine from caverns, which has taken place in Cheshire since Roman times. In the salt purification process, residues are returned via a closed-loop circuit by pipelines to where the brine originates in underground cavities. As no environmental impact arises out of that method of disposal, a landfill tax on salt residues, under the "polluter pays" principle, cannot be justified.
      The salt industry, especially British Salt in my constituency, has invested considerable sums in developing the best practical environmental option to dispose of salt purification residues. Unlike soil, there is no market elsewhere for the residues.
      The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. I am a little concerned that the matter with which the hon. Lady is dealing relates more to an amendment that has not been selected than to the one that she claims she is speaking to. I am not happy about that.
      Mrs. Winterton: I stand admonished, Dame Janet. May I make one final point, however, which relates to a matter raised in the previous debate? The reduction in

      175
      national insurance contributions would provide British Salt with an annual saving of approximately £926, whereas the landfill tax at the lower rate would cost the industry £36,000 a year. That would be a tremendous on-cost for the industry that feeds that commodity to the chemical industry.
      I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will look favourably at the case of soil produced as a by-product of the agricultural process and the other matters that I raised, because they are valid arguments and need to be considered carefully. I hope that he will give an encouraging reply.
      6 pm
      Mr. Andrew Miller: I wish to speak to amendment No. 2 in so far as it affects a number of inland waterways in my constituency. I am grateful to those who tabled the amendment for raising this important issue. The Government must think it through carefully. I hope that the Minister will allay fears by confirming that the Government did not intend to create a tax on inland waterways. I understand from correspondence thus far that that is not the case.
      The Manchester ship canal is not just a major route into the ports of Runcorn, Ellesmere Port and further up into Manchester, but a drainage system that collects its water by natural mechanisms from a number of rivers in the Mersey basin. Close to my home in the constituency of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury, the right hon. Member for Eddisbury (Mr. Goodlad), is the River Weaver, which flows into the ship canal. That river deposits material into the canal, and the canal needs dredging as a result. Such natural phenomena should not be subject to a tax, as envisaged by the Bill.
      The National Association of Boat Owners often writes to me on issues relating to narrowboats, because of the presence of the canal museum in my constituency. It has drawn to my attention a study undertaken by the Construction Industry Research and Information Association in consultation with waterways organisations and English Nature, which reported that
      "Dredgings are natural materials which do not arise from any polluting activity, or industrial or commercial process. They are not waste in the conventional sense, and the operator disposing of them does not create them. The tax would not result in a reduction in the amount of material created."
      It is a simple phenomenon of the river systems that feed those canals.
      "They are therefore not the materials, nor are the operators the polluters, at which the tax is aimed."
      Clearly, dredging is an essential part of such canal systems. Those not familiar with the area's geography may be interested to know that the lagoons into which much of the dredged material is deposited were not created simply for dumping materials but are a function of the creation of the ship canal, which cut off much low-lying land from the Mersey basin. They have created a wonderful habitat for a number of species. That process, which has continued since the canal was first built, has enriched the environment and it is important to handle it with great care and sensitivity. The Bill would penalise the Manchester Ship Canal Company and, subsequently, users of the ship canal not only for a natural phenomenon but for depositing materials in lagoons that are best served by being recovered and transformed in the same way as other marshland.
      176
      A number of other companies have written to me. GATX Terminals Ltd. points out the economic impact on the ports, from Eastham through to Runcorn. When I first moved to the north-west in 1977, a day rarely went by when a large ship did not pass up the canal on its way to Manchester. That no longer happens. The ports are extremely depressed, and financial penalties will put them at further risk.
      I have also received a copy of a letter from the chairman and chief executive of Shell UK, which raises some important points. The Stanlow oil refinery abuts the shores of the ship canal in the Ellesmere Port area. Shell points out:
      "Because of the specific geographical circumstances of the Manchester Ship Canal, about 700,000 tonnes of dredgings are not disposed of at sea".
      Instead, they are put into the lagoons that I described earlier.
      In many other localities, port authorities could be required to dispose of dredgings at sea but that is not the case in the circumstances that I described. Appropriately, Shell's letter was sent to the Minister for Industry and Energy, and I hope that he brought it to the attention of Treasury Ministers. Shell argues that the proposed tax would impact on the costs to both the Manchester Ship Canal Company and a number of users.
      Against that background, the Government should take a fresh look at the case. The materials are not waste materials in a conventional sense, but simply a function of nature. The rivers that feed the waterways create the materials that have to be dredged to keep the commercial, environmental and pleasure facilities open. Those materials cannot properly be regarded as waste materials in the context of the tax.
      Mr. Churchill: I welcome the Chancellor's Budget, including the concept of a landfill tax. That tax is intended to be environmentally friendly by taxing landfill tipping of commercial and household waste. However, as it relates to port dredgings, the tax is clearly and categorically environmentally hostile—it is that aspect of the tax which lies at the heart of amendment No. 2.
      The impact of the new tax will be devastating for ports throughout the United Kingdom—none more so than the Manchester ship canal. Were this part of the Finance Bill to pass on to the statute book unamended, it would amount to a declaration of war on the Manchester ship canal and the company that operates it. I am sure that that cannot have been the intention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor—or, indeed, the Government. I therefore venture to hope that my amendment is pushing at an open door.
      It is true that the Manchester ship canal no longer carries the volume of traffic of previous years. As recently as the 1970s it was common to see 10,000-tonne container vessels slipping silently up the waterway between fields of cabbages—an amazing sight. Even today, the canal represents an important factor in the economic life of Greater Manchester, Salford and many other communities along its banks. The Manchester ship canal is important to those companies that import vast quantities of grain, and it is especially important to the major oil companies, all of which have oil refineries or terminals on it.
      The canal is indispensable to the operations of the numerous companies—the more than 1,350 individual companies—in Trafford Park which the hon. Member for

      177
      Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) and I have the honour of representing. Trafford Park is one of the greatest of the Government's many success stories. Thanks to the Government's policies on enterprise zones and development corporations, in the past 10 years, employment in Trafford Park has increased by more than 50 per cent. The number of people who come each day to Trafford Park to earn their living has increased from 25,000 to more than 37,500. Many thousands of those jobs would stand to be blighted if decisions were taken in the House which rendered uneconomical the operations of the port of Manchester, the canal and the Manchester Ship Canal Company that operates it.
      Mr. Keith Bradley: I support the amendment and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way.
      Is it not estimated that the tax on the Manchester Ship Canal Company could be as much as £5 million a year, which would, in itself, put the company out of business? As the hon. Gentleman rightly says, that would have a devastating impact on the regional economy and on the many multinational companies and the smaller companies that thrive owing to the Manchester Ship Canal Company and its support. Will the hon. Gentleman give my assurance to the Minister that the Opposition support the amendment and hope that the Government will recognise its importance to the future of the companies situated on the ship canal and the Ship Canal Company itself?
      6.15 pm
      Mr. Churchill: I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman for assuring me of his support and for his offer of support from the Opposition. I endorse what he has said about the importance to all the communities in the Greater Manchester area of this great undertaking. It is not only the commercial undertakings that would be damaged were the Manchester Ship Canal Company to go under. Our constituents, over a vast area, would get their feet wet because the ship canal provides drainage for 750 square miles. Not only would the tax have a devastating commercial impact, but the adverse environmental impact would be every bit as great if the company operating the canal were forced into bankruptcy and the canal was allowed to silt up.
      In order to keep the canal and the port of Manchester open, the Manchester Ship Canal Company has to dredge no fewer than 1 million tonnes of silt and sludge from the canal each year. It is, for sound economic reasons, discouraged by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food from dumping the waste at sea. It is therefore left with no choice but to dispose of its dredgings on landfill sites. The Manchester Ship Canal Company has estimated that, if the Finance Bill's landfill tax provisions were to pass on to the statute book unamended, the company could face a financial liability of between £1.8 million at the bottom of the scale to £4.7 million at the top, depending on how the water and pollution content of the dredging is assessed by the Customs and Excise.
      I am most grateful to my hon. Friend the Paymaster General for his assurance that he does not intend, at least for the time being, to make the water content of dredgings taxable. I am sure that hon. Members will agree that the
      178
      Treasury has made a remarkable and important concession. It is a great relief to know that the Treasury has not yet come up with a way of taxing H2o, but doubtless that omission is, even now, being worked on in a broom cupboard in an office in Great George street. For the moment, we have been assured that the water content of dredgings will not be taxable, and I take the Minister's assurance at face value.
      If the clause were to pass unamended, the Manchester Ship Canal Company would face bankruptcy and my constituents, and those of other hon. Members, would stand to get their feet wet as a consequence of the canal silting up.
      I bring to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Minister the fact that the Manchester Ship Canal Company does not create those dredgings, or such pollution as the dredgings contain. Those come down as silt in the tributaries to the River Irwell and to the ship canal. Nor does the company profit from the disposal of such dredgings, which cost it many millions of pounds a year to remove.
      Two years ago, the Manchester Ship Canal Company and the ship canal celebrated the centenary of the canal's opening by Queen Victoria in 1894. The canal is a monument to the spirit of enterprise of the Victorian era and the entrepreneurship of the burghers of Manchester. It continues to serve a vital function, environmentally and commercially.
      It would be nothing less than a tragedy if a free-enterprise Government—which the present Administration pride themselves on being—as a result of the Bill, unwittingly forced the Manchester Ship Canal Company into bankruptcy and caused the canal to silt up. I cannot believe that that is the Government's wish or intention. However, I should be enormously grateful to my right hon. Friend the Minister for his assurance about that, because otherwise I shall be impelled to press the amendment to a Division.
      Mr. Tipping: The effect of the landfill tax on the sugar beet industry has been mentioned several times. I hope that the Minister will listen to the anxieties that have been expressed on both sides of the Chamber.
      I have a direct constituency interest. Although British Sugar's factory at Newark is not in my constituency, many of the suppliers, farmers and producers are based in the Sherwood constituency and in north Nottinghamshire.
      I have visited British Sugar's factory at Newark. There are eight similar factories, and I believe that many hon. Members share my worries. I have been impressed by the way in which the factory has become increasingly efficient. The market is highly competitive, and I have no doubt that the management and work force of the factory are keen to maximise profits and make the plant as efficient as possible. Their record speaks for itself.
      As sugar beet is lifted, soil is lifted too. Over the years, the amount of soil lifted has been reduced substantially. I understand that between 8 million and 9 million tonnes of sugar beet are lifted annually, which results in about 500,000 tonnes of soil being left as waste. That is an excellent relationship, compared with that in competitor nations. In France, 30 per cent. of the tonnage is soil waste.
      In the old days, soil was taken back to the farms and spread on the land, and obviously that was a sensible way to proceed. The difficulty has arisen because of a disease

      179
      called rhizomania and the fact that it is no longer considered acceptable to spread that soil on the ground. Other ways of disposing of the 500,000 tonnes must be found.
      British Sugar and others have worked on that problem. The residue is used for landscaping, horticulture and other purposes, and more research has been undertaken. In the long term, it may be possible to find other uses, but a substantial amount of soil remains to be disposed of.
      In fairness to British Sugar, we should acknowledge that it has set up eight landfill sites of its own. The cost of a landfill tax on the disposal into its sites will be about £2 per tonne. That may cost the sugar beet industry, which competes in a highly competitive market against international concerns, as much as £2 million.
      Sugar beet operators are being disadvantaged. I hope that the Minister will undertake to consider the issue carefully, for three reasons. First, sugar beet operators desire to put soil back to soil; it is the way of nature, and they should be helped to do so, not taxed. Secondly, they are forbidden to return soil to soil by Government guidelines and legislation to combat rhizomania. Thirdly, we should acknowledge that the disposal has been done by the company itself in its own landfill sites.
      Given that background, for those three reasons there is a compelling case to reconsider the issue and to consider the notion of disposing of soil in that use under a different category—not the inert category, at £2 a tonne, but a new, zero-rated category.
      I hope that the Minister will listen to the opinions of hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber, study the amendment carefully and give us the benefit of some further thought on that matter.
      Mr. Tim Devlin: I have listened with great interest to the debate, especially to the persuasive speeches of my hon. Friends the Members for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill) and for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton) and the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller). However, what is suggested in the two amendments may lead us into the danger of creating an interesting anomaly in the way in which the landfill tax might operate, were those amendments to be accepted.
      The real problem is the definition of waste in landfill generally. The tax, which would encourage recycling and waste minimisation, is designed to tackle local authority waste and commercial industrial waste, which might be eliminated if minimising such waste were encouraged more. Unfortunately, certain processes, such as the dredging of canals and the washing of sugar beet, inevitably create unavoidable residues that are not, in the usual definition of waste, regarded as waste products. Those residues are simply what has come up from the earth and, when they return to the earth, cannot be regarded as man-made waste. There is an obvious difference between that position and the usual position in a commercial or public landfill site.
      The most common items in any landfill site, by mass, are telephone directories. If we seek ways to minimise the bulk in landfill sites, the first thing that we might do is compel all telephone companies to collect their telephone directories and recycle them. That would take about one third of household waste out of any landfill site.
      The Minister told the House the environmental reasons for raising the new tax. I strongly support what the Government are doing. I have qualms about the use of
      180
      inert material such as soil from sugar beet and dredgings from canals, but let us compare those types of material with the material that is left after ores have been processed. Ores come out of the earth and, after the metal has been extracted from them, a certain amount of rock is left. It comes in the form of pure, inert—albeit chunky—pieces of soil, but it is from the earth and is usually placed into landfill straight afterwards.
      There is no way of minimising the amount of inert rock material that results from processing an ore into a metal. I shall give the Committee a specific example. A company in my constituency, Harcros, provides most of Europe's chrome. The chromium ore is mined in South Africa and Russia, it is brought to this country by ship and transported by road to the factory, where it is melted in a giant furnace to produce the chrome which appears on our cars, refrigerators and other domestic appliances which we use every day.
      The residue from that process is an inert grey powder which must then go to landfill. The amount of powder resulting from the process cannot be minimised: it is produced in direct proportion to the amount of ore used, which is dependent on how much metal must be extracted. There is no way that Harcross can minimise the waste inert material that it produces. It disposes of the material in clay-pits and it sells the clay to a brick manufacturer next door. The firm owns the landfill site, which is not available for public use.
      6.30 pm
      The firm can control the amount of waste material produced only by cutting production. Therefore, I am afraid that the landfill tax will impose a severe penalty on that company. If it installs new processing machinery to ensure that there are no poisonous chemicals in the residue, it will not be allowed to offset the cost of the machinery against the amount paid in landfill tax. The company has its own landfill site and it is not depriving others of landfill facilities, but the costs that it incurs will eventually be passed on to the customer.
      Mr. Miller: The hon. Gentleman presents a compelling argument in the context of a specific case. However, does he agree that there is a difference between general waste that is derived from mineral exploitation and the circumstances described in amendment No. 2, in that the waste material that is derived from mineral exploitation is manmade, whereas the waste that is found in inland waterways is deposited naturally by the river courses which feed those waterways?
      Mr. Devlin: The inland waterways are manmade also. Material is excavated from those waterways by way of a human process in the same way that extracting metal from an ore is a human process. We are in danger of creating an anomaly in that regard.
      We may also create an anomaly in the case of development corporations. My hon. Friend the Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill) mentioned the Trafford Park development corporation; the Teesside development corporation is located in my constituency. In both cases, large areas of land—which are called brown-field sites—are being reclaimed. Those areas were previously subject to industrial development and in many cases their reclamation involves removing concrete, tarmac and other

      181
      materials. That waste material is removed and used as landfill on another part of the site, or it is taken from the site and landfilled elsewhere.
      In such cases, the landfill tax could be viewed as a tax on urban regeneration, as that material must be removed from the surface before any further development can take place. The directors and the board of the Teesside development corporation are concerned about the matter and have raised it with the Department of the Environment. I hope that the Department has passed on those concerns to the Treasury, and I look forward to hearing my hon. Friend the Minister respond to them in due course.
      I invite my hon. Friend to consider carefully the two amendments in the context of sugar beet soil and river dredging. However, there may be other cases—such as urban regeneration and the extraction of mineral ores—where the ordinary operation of the human development process involves the transfer of earth to another site. Rubbish waste is not created, and I question whether it is just to impose a landfill tax in such cases.
      Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I listened carefully to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin). Many of his points must be considered further in Standing Committee, because they fall outside the scope of the two amendments under consideration. However, I do not dismiss his remarks and I can reassure him that, if the spoil and waste from mining are not categorised as controlled waste, they will not be taxable under the proposals. My hon. Friend went on to describe an industrial process which would be taxable.
      On amendment No. 1, the case for exemption for processing certain agricultural waste soil was advanced very ably by my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton). I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Mr. Alexander)—who could not be present—is also concerned about the issue. He has sugar beet growers and processors in his constituency and he fears that the new tax will damage that industry. The hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Tipping) made a similar point.
      I have listened carefully to the views expressed, but I stress that the landfill tax is designed to encourage all waste producers to reduce the amount of waste produced. In this instance, the soil that adheres to the sugar beet during processing is a waste product and must be disposed of in some way.
      British Sugar has reduced the amount of soil that adheres to sugar beet roots so that it has to wash and transport less waste material, and the landfill tax might be an incentive to reduce waste even further. The industry is also exploiting the market for good-quality soil that is washed from the sugar beet. There is a ready market for such soil in some parts of the country. It is used for landscaping landfill sites, golf courses, and so on. At present, the industry disposes of some soil in that way, although the concentration of nine processing sites in the eastern part of the country has caused some market saturation in those counties.
      Mrs. Ann Winterton: I refer my hon. Friend to another valid argument. British Sugar is no longer allowed to dispose of waste soil at the site from which it was taken originally. That was the usual practice until it was restricted by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and
      182
      Food in an attempt to stop the spread of rhizomania. Will my hon. Friend and his Department examine the problem and perhaps advance some helpful proposals?
      Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: My hon. Friend has told the Committee about rhizomania and the restrictions placed on British Sugar about returning the soil to the areas where sugar beet is grown. Those restrictions do not prevent the soil from being used for landscaping, and it can be returned to agricultural use for pasture. The restrictions are important for the suppression and prevention of rhizomania.
      The case for an exemption has not been made, but I wish to be helpful to my hon. Friends and other hon. Members who have raised the issue. I will ensure that the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food discusses the matter further with British Sugar to see whether the agreement to prevent rhizomania can be relaxed or adapted to permit British Sugar to dispose of surplus soil in ways that are impossible at present.
      Furthermore, I will ensure that Customs and Excise, for which I am responsible, continues its fruitful discussions with British Sugar. Those two organisations could define the problem exactly, and examine the possibility of allowing the company to set some of the soil aside in storage, temporarily and without paying the tax, pending the return of the soil or its sale to markets. The continuing discussions will assist the company concerned and other root and vegetable processors in trying to ameliorate the impact of the tax. One of the aims of the tax is to give an incentive to do what the company is already doing—to seek other markets and other ways to dispose of the soil.
      Mr. Tipping: I am grateful for the interest that the Minister has shown in the subject and for the discussions that are to take place between British Sugar and Customs and Excise. In those discussions, will the excise be mindful that British Sugar disposes of the waste itself? The waste goes to its own sites and it bears the costs. In effect, the whole operation is financially neutral and that may be an area for fruitful discussion.
      Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I am aware of that point, and I will emphasise it to the officials.
      Amendment No. 2 deals with dredgings, and the case for exempting them. I am aware of that case because, during the extensive consultation that took place, it was made repeatedly by those who own and operate ports and waterways. Dredgings are currently within the scope of the tax, because they are controlled wastes under Department of the Environment regulations. Therefore, disposal of that material to landfill is taxable. However, that illustrates the point that such material that is not landfilled—in other words, disposed of at sea, on the bank of a canal or on land in other ways—is not taxable. So, much of such material does not fall within the tax. However, some of it does have to go to landfill and will fall to be taxed.
      I wish to emphasise the point, which was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill), that such material is only dry waste. He made light of that point, but some of those who are complaining about the impact of tax have mildly exaggerated its effect by including all the water that may be mixed up with the materials that will be landfilled. A conversion factor will

      183
      be applied, and we are seeking to tax only dry weight. However, I accept the point that some dredgings must be landfilled and will fall to be taxed.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Davyhulme made several powerful points, as did the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston and other hon. Members who are familiar with that important canal and waterway. The distinction that can fairly be drawn in this case is that the waste that operators are disposing of exists only through natural forces. I accept that point. The soil and the silt that they are dredging are being returned to dry land. As has been pointed out, dredging has the beneficial result of keeping waterways clear for navigation and preventing floods.
      Dredgings form a relatively definable category of waste that it was not the intention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor to tax when he announced his proposals to the House more than a year ago. I cannot accept amendment No. 2, because it would amend the wrong part of the Bill, and we need to define further exactly how an exemption would operate. I hope that the Committee will accept that I wish to find a way of exempting dredgings. With that assurance, I hope that the amendment will be withdrawn.
      Sir Donald Thompson: Will my hon. Friend give way?
      Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: My hon. Friend is just in time.
      6.45 pm
      Sir Donald Thompson: Would it not be paradoxical if some canals were to attract derelict land grant for clearing and restoration, as they do now, and were simultaneously taxed?
      Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Life is full of paradoxes, but we can probably do without that one. In the spirit of what I have announced, I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Davyhulme will withdraw the amendment.
      The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Member for Davyhulme does not need to do so, because amendment No. 2 has not been moved.
      Mr. Churchill: I wish to express my appreciation to my hon. Friend the Minister, to the Chancellor and to the Government for accepting the clear-cut case that those of us who have spoken to the amendment feel exists for exempting canal and port dredgings from the ambit of the tax. I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments, and I am delighted to accept his assurance that a suitably drafted amendment will be introduced later during the passage of the Bill. On that basis, I am more than happy not to press amendment No. 2.
      Mr. Miller: My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley) and I have listened to the Minister's response about the Manchester ship canal. Given the powerful arguments that have been advanced, will the Minister assure us that, before a new amendment is introduced, he will urgently consult those companies and their representatives from that river basin? This is an important issue.
      Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: This subject has been characterised throughout by a willingness to consult, and
      184
      we will continue that. We hope to exempt dredgings in a precise way that does not give rise to any ambiguity, and we shall consult on the wording.
      Amendment negatived.
      Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
      Mr. Roger Stott: May I first apologise to the Minister? I had to leave the Chamber when he was replying to the remarks that were made on amendment No. 5. I wish to say what I would have said had I remained in the Chamber at that time.
      The right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sir J. Molyneaux) said earlier that the polluter must pay. I have no problem whatever with that, but I have a problem with clause 36.
      The hon. Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill), who is just leaving the Chamber, and my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley) will be aware that the metropolitan authorities in the old Greater Manchester area joined together to become their own waste disposal authority. My local authority, the metropolitan borough of Wigan, which has a population of almost 250,000, decided some years ago to pull out of the Greater Manchester waste disposal authority. As a former mining area, Wigan can dispose of its waste considerably more cheaply alone than if it remains part of the authority. This arrangement has applied for the past five or six years.
      I want to stress that what we are putting in the landfill sites in my constituency and in three or four others in old mining areas is domestic waste. We are not putting in industrial waste. I have visited the landfill site on many occasions, and I am convinced that it is extremely well managed. The methane is extracted safely, and there are special precautions to prevent leaching into the water courses. The tip is sprayed and covered each evening. The Minister talked about the nuisance created by seagulls. My local authority, which owns the tip, has engaged a falconer who comes along with his falcon and scares away the seagulls.
      Even disregarding the employers' national insurance contributions, this tax will mean that council tax payers in the metropolitan borough of Wigan will have an additional burden placed on them. My authority is already rate-capped. It owns the landfill site, it manages it properly and it then reclaims the land for community purposes. The tax will amount to a wheelie bin tax on the council tax payers of Wigan.
      I have no problem with making polluters pay for their waste, stored in landfill sites or elsewhere, but I hope that my hon. Friends will press again in Committee the point that the tax penalises my local authority for putting domestic waste in a landfill site that we own and manage. Even taking into account the money that will come back to the local authority in the shape of national insurance contributions, we shall be about £750,000 worse off as a consequence. That cost will fall directly on my constituents and on the rest of the metropolitan borough. It is therefore not a good idea, and I hope that something will be done about it at a later stage of the Committee's proceedings.
      Mr. George Walden: I am sorry to say that what is poison for one constituency is pure honey for another. My constituents will be delighted with this measure. There was a rash of applications for landfill sites a few years ago. When I looked into the detail, I found to

      185
      my horror that, for various historical and geological reasons, Britain is covered with quarries and disused gravel pits—most of them in my constituency. I then discovered that we were turning our country into a place where other countries were attracted to dump their rubbish. I learned that, for geological reasons and because of the availability of sites here, the costs were horrifyingly low. Other countries also offer more incentives to incinerate.
      I pride myself in a small constituency way on having given a little push to this tax. I am glad to see Treasury Ministers, of all people, improving their environmental credentials by introducing the tax.
      I have written to the Minister about the fact that my constituents in Pitstone and Ivinghoe are threatened by a massive landfill site that will badly damage local amenities in an area of outstanding natural beauty. I should be pleased to hear more details, as soon as my hon. Friend has them, about the Government's exact intentions in respect of the tax.
      The last thing I want is that the tax should impede business in any way. I was interested to hear hon. Members raise objections in that regard. I was glad to hear the Minister imply that there might be some solution to those objections. I have in my hand a letter from Shell UK to the Minister for Industry and Energy about the Manchester ship canal. Those who, like me, have had a small hand in pushing this idea forward do not want to inhibit our industries in any way.
      In any event, I congratulate the Minister on introducing the measure.
      Mr. Malcolm Bruce: This is an important measure. It is interesting to note how widely the principle behind it is accepted as a desirable method of dealing with the problems. I agree with the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden) that pressure on many sites in rural and suburban areas has become intense. To the extent that the tax will concentrate people's minds on finding other ways of disposing of waste, it must be highly desirable.
      It is also true that the measure will pose difficulties for some industries. Some of the paper mills in my constituency produce inert waste that is not easily disposed of. Nevertheless, we all accept that the nettle must be grasped if we are to tackle these environmental problems.
      Hon. Members have already mentioned the difficulties from the local authority point of view. There are also concerns as to how quickly they will be able to adjust. My hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Jones) tells me that Gloucestershire county council reckons the measure will cost it £740,000 in the first year. Multiplied across the country, it becomes clear that local authorities, which are already squeezed, will face difficulties—although I am sure they will use their ingenuity to implement the measure.
      I want to refer, secondly, to the point of principle in amendment No. 5. The Government, and all political parties that believe in environmental taxation, must make it clear to the public that measures such as these are not just another wheeze for getting money out of people, but represent a genuine desire to shift habits. The money that is raised should be repaid immediately in tax cuts
      186
      elsewhere. I am therefore slightly worried about the Government implementing the tax this year while making a great song about benefits that will not accrue until next year.
      I might also point out that there will have been a general election in the interval, so the Government might not be in a position to deliver on their promise—leaving them exposed to the charge that they are more interested in introducing a tax than in providing the offsetting benefits.
      That partly explains why my party voted against the Government's proposals to extend VAT to fuel, which was claimed afterwards to be an environmental move, but the revenue generated was used only to boost the Exchequer. An important matter of principle is at stake, and the Opposition amendment neatly encapsulated it. I suspect that that is why we shall vote together to ensure that our point is well made.
      Ms Primarolo: The Government have not answered a number of points to do with clause 36, which deals with the charge to tax and the date for the national insurance contributions rebate. We debated the latter fully earlier this afternoon. Local authorities and landfill site operators will be greatly disadvantaged by the six-month delay that the Government have introduced—despite the undertakings given by the Chancellor in 1994 and 1995.
      I want to make a few clear points about our objections, which are not to the existence of the tax but to the way in which the Government propose to implement it. It is crucial to encourage the development of alternative waste management options if we are to achieve the full potential of the tax.
      We have heard about the Manchester ship canal and British Sugar, and my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) spoke about Tioxide UK, which will be penalised. Although that company takes highly toxic waste and puts it through an environmental process, recycling a great deal of it, there remains inert waste which it will have to pay to landfill. Presumably, one of its options is to put all its toxic waste into landfill and simply pay a slightly higher charge. It is vital that we have support systems in place to develop alternatives.
      Despite the assurances that were given by the Paymaster General today—frankly, he is on a wing and a prayer—it is clear that he does not understand the cost of recycling or the investment that is necessary to introduce such processes. Changing people's behaviour is vital. He did not deal with the likely encouragement of disposal by less environmentally desirable options than landfill. He certainly did not say how we will ensure that fly tipping is not the by-product of the tax, which would defeat the very purpose of introducing it. He did not explain the interim measures that will ensure that waste producers are not able to avoid payment. He did not deal with current illegal sites, which will remain outside the landfill tax. Finally, he did not say how local authorities that are already under severe financial containment by the Government will be able to deal with new strategies to encourage recycling when they do not have the financial resources. The landfill tax will increase their costs for the disposal of waste.
      For all those reasons, we shall vote against the clause and continue to press the Government to convert the landfill tax into a true environmental tax instead of a bit of window dressing.
      7 pm
      Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: The clause is an important element in the introduction of a landfill tax, about which we have consulted widely. I am grateful for the expressions of support for the principle of the tax from hon. Members on both sides of the House. It will encourage good environmental practice. By taxing landfill, we will encourage the development of alternative ways of dealing with waste. Indeed, it will lead to less waste being produced in the first place.
      That justification for the tax is valid even if the landfill site is well engineered, as obviously is the case in the example described by the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott). My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden) put the other side of the argument and showed that, even if a landfill site is well run and managed, there are still substantial nuisance problems to surrounding residents—smell, noise, litter, dust and traffic movements, for example. It is right, therefore, to try to capture those external costs and attribute them to the producers and handlers of waste.
      The revenue raised from the tax will be some £450 million in a full year, and rather more than that—some £500 million in a full year—will be used to cut further the main rate of national insurance contributions to 10 per cent. The UK is leading the way in lightening the burden of employment taxation. That is one reason why our employment record is better than that of any other major economy in Europe.
      Bafflingly, the Opposition now say that they will vote against the clause. Having supported the landfill tax, and having failed to indicate anything in the clause with which they disagree, they will, for reasons best known to themselves, vote against a key clause in bringing into effect the landfill tax. My right hon. and hon. Friends know better. I urge them and as many other hon. Members as possible to vote for the clause.
      Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—
      The Committee divided: Ayes 283, Noes 260.

      Division No. 32]

      [7.05 pm

      AYES

      Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

      Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

      Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

      Bowden, Sir Andrew

      Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

      Bowis, John

      Amess, David

      Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

      Arbuthnot, James

      Brandreth, Gyles

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Brazier, Julian

      Ashby, David

      Bright, Sir Graham

      Atkins, Rt Hon Robert

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

      Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

      Bruce, Ian (Dorset)

      Baldry, Tony

      Burns, Simon

      Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

      Burt, Alistair

      Bates, Michael

      Butcher, John

      Batiste, Spencer

      Butler, Peter

      Bellingham, Henry

      Butterfill, John

      Bendall, Vivian

      Carlisle, John (Luton North)

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Carrington, Matthew

      Body, Sir Richard

      Cash, William

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Chapman, Sir Sydney

      Booth, Hartley

      Churchill, Mr

      Boswell, Tim

      Clappison, James

      188

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

      Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

      Hendry, Charles

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Hicks, Robert

      Coe, Sebastian

      Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

      Colvin, Michael

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

      Congdon, David

      Horam, John

      Conway, Derek

      Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

      Couchman, James

      Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

      Cran, James

      Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

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

      Hunter, Andrew

      Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

      Jack, Michael

      Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Day, Stephen

      Jessel, Toby

      Deva, Nirj Joseph

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Devlin, Tim

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

      Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Dover, Den

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Duncan, Alan

      Key, Robert

      Duncan-Smith, Iain

      King, Rt Hon Tom

      Dunn, Bob

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Durant, Sir Anthony

      Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

      Dykes, Hugh

      Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)

      Eggar, Rt Hon Tim

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

      Elletson, Harold

      Knox, Sir David

      Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

      Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

      Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

      Lawrence, Sir Ivan

      Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

      Legg, Barry

      Evennett, David

      Leigh, Edward

      Faber, David

      Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

      Fabricant, Michael

      Lester, Sir James (Broxtowe)

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      Lidington, David

      Fishburn, Dudley

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Forman, Nigel

      Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

      Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)

      Lord, Michael

      Forth, Eric

      Luff, Peter

      Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

      MacKay, Andrew

      Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

      Maclean, Rt Hon David

      Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      French, Douglas

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

      Gale, Roger

      Madel, Sir David

      Gallie, Phil

      Maitland, Lady Olga

      Gardiner, Sir George

      Major, Rt Hon John

      Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan

      Malone, Gerald

      Garnier, Edward

      Mans, Keith

      Gill, Christopher

      Marlow, Tony

      Gillan, Cheryl

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

      Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

      Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

      Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Mates, Michael

      Gorst, Sir John

      Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

      Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)

      Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Mellor, Rt Hon David

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Merchant, Piers

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Grylls, Sir Michael

      Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

      Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

      Moate, Sir Roger

      Hague, Rt Hon William

      Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector

      Hamilton, Rt Han Sir Archibald

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

      Needham, Rt Hon Richard

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Neubert, Sir Michael

      Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Hannam, Sir John

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Hargreaves, Andrew

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Harris, David

      Norris, Steve

      Hawkins, Nick

      Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

      Hawksley, Warren

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Hayes, Jerry

      Ottaway, Richard

      Heald, Oliver

      Page, Richard

      Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

      Paice, James

      189

      Patten, Rt Hon John

      Sweeney, Walter

      Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Sykes, John

      Pawsey, James

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Thomason, Roy

      Renton, Rt Hon Tim

      Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

      Richards, Rod

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Riddick, Graham

      Thornton, Sir Malcolm

      Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

      Thurnham, Peter

      Robathan, Andrew

      Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

      Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

      Tracey, Richard

      Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

      Tredinnick, David

      Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

      Trend, Michael

      Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

      Trotter, Neville

      Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Sackville, Tom

      Viggers, Peter

      Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

      Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

      Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Walden, George

      Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

      Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

      Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

      Waller, Gary

      Shersby, Sir Michael

      Ward, John

      Sims, Roger

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Waterson, Nigel

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Watts, John

      Soames, Nicholas

      Wells, Bowen

      Spencer, Sir Derek

      Whitney, Ray

      Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

      Whittingdale, John

      Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Spink, Dr Robert

      Wiggin, Sir Jerry

      Spring, Richard

      Wilkinson, John

      Sproat, Iain

      Willetts, David

      Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

      Wilshire, David

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Steen, Anthony

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

      Stephen, Michael

      Yeo, Tim

      Stern, Michael

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Stewart, Allan

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Streeter, Gary

      Mr. Roger Knapman and

      Sumberg, David

      Mr. Timothy Wood.

      NOES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Byers, Stephen

      Adams, Mrs Irene

      Caborn, Richard

      Ainger, Nick

      Callaghan, Jim

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Allen, Graham

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Alton, David

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

      Campbell-Savours, D N

      Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

      Canavan, Dennis

      Armstrong, Hilary

      Cann, Jamie

      Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

      Chisholm, Malcolm

      Ashton, Joe

      Clapham, Michael

      Austin-Walker, John

      Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

      Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      Barnes, Harry

      Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

      Battle, John

      Clelland, David

      Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      Bell, Stuart

      Coffey, Ann

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Cohen, Harry

      Bennett, Andrew F

      Connarty, Michael

      Benton, Joe

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Cook, Robin (Livingston)

      Berry, Roger

      Corbett, Robin

      Betts, Clive

      Corston, Jean

      Blair, Rt Hon Tony

      Cousins, Jim

      Boateng, Paul

      Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

      Bradley, Keith

      Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

      Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

      Cunningham, Roseanna

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

      Dafis, Cynog

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Dalyell, Tam

      Burden, Richard

      Darling, Alistair

      190

      Davidson, Ian

      Litherland, Robert

      Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

      Livingstone, Ken

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

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Loyden, Eddie

      Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

      Lynne, Ms Liz

      Denham, John

      McAllion, John

      Dewar, Donald

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Dixon, Don

      McCartney, Ian

      Dobson, Frank

      McCrea, The Reverend William

      Dowd, Jim

      McFall, John

      Eagle, Ms Angela

      McKelvey, William

      Eastham, Ken

      McLeish, Henry

      Etherington, Bill

      Maclennan, Robert

      Evans, John (St Helens N)

      McMaster, Gordon

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret

      McNamara, Kevin

      Fatchett, Derek

      MacShane, Denis

      Faulds, Andrew

      McWilliam, John

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      Madden, Max

      Flynn, Paul

      Mahon, Alice

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Mandelson, Peter

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Marek, Dr John

      Foulkes, George

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Fyfe, Maria

      Martin, Michael J (Springbum)

      Galbraith, Sam

      Maxton, John

      Galloway, George

      Meacher, Michael

      Gapes, Mike

      Meale, Alan

      Garrett, John

      Michael, Alun

      George, Bruce

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Gerrard, Neil

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

      Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

      Milburn, Alan

      Godman, Dr Norman A

      Miller, Andrew

      Godsiff, Roger

      Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

      Golding, Mrs Lin

      Molyneaux, Rt Hon Sir James

      Gordon, Mildred

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Graham, Thomas

      Morgan, Rhodri

      Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

      Morley, Elliot

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

      Grocott, Bruce

      Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

      Gunnell, John

      Mowlam, Marjorie

      Hain, Peter

      Mudie, George

      Hall, Mike

      Mullin, Chris

      Hanson, David

      Murphy, Paul

      Harvey, Nick

      Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

      Henderson, Doug

      O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)

      Heppell, John

      O'Brien, William (Normanton)

      Hinchliffe, David

      O'Hara, Edward

      Hodge, Margaret

      Olner, Bill

      Hoey, Kate

      O'Neill, Martin

      Home Robertson, John

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Hood, Jimmy

      Parry, Robert

      Hoon, Geoffrey

      Pearson, Ian

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

      Pendry, Tom

      Howarth, George (Knowsley North)

      Pickthall, Colin

      Howells, Dr Kim (Pontypridd)

      Pike, Peter L

      Hoyle, Doug

      Pope, Greg

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

      Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)

      Hutton, John

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Illsley, Eric

      Prescott Rt Hon John

      Ingram, Adam

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

      Purchase, Ken

      Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Jamieson, David

      Randall, Stuart

      Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

      Raynsford, Nick

      Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

      Reid, Dr John

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

      Rendel, David

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Robertson, George (Hamilton)

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

      Keen, Alan

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

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

      Rogers, Allan

      Khabra, Piara S

      Rocker, Jeff

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Rowlands, Ted

      Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

      Ruddock, Joan

      Liddell, Mrs Helen

      Salmond, Alex

      191

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Touhig, Don

      Sheerman, Barry

      Trimble, David

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Turner, Dennis

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Tyler, Paul

      Short, Clare

      Vaz, Keith

      Simpson, Alan

      Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

      Skinner, Dennis

      Wallace, James

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      Walley, Joan

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

      Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Wareing, Robert N

      Smyth, The Reverend Martin

      Watson, Mike

      Snape, Peter

      Welsh, Andrew

      Soley, Clive

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Spearing, Nigel

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Speller, John

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (SW'n W)

      Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

      Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

      Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

      Wilson, Brian

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Winnick, David

      Stevenson, George

      Wise, Audrey

      Stott, Roger

      Worthington, Tony

      Strang, Dr. Gavin

      Wright, Dr Tony

      Straw, Jack

      Young, David (Bolton SE)

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Timms, Stephen

      Mr. Jon Owen Jones and

      Tipping, Paddy

      Mr. Eric Martlew.

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Clause 36 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      Rev. Martin Smyth: On a point of order, Mr. Lofthouse. Have Northern Ireland Office Ministers asked you to adjourn the Committee so that a statement can be made about the closure of Fokkers, and the impact of that closure on Shorts? Some 1,500 jobs could be threatened.
      The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): I have received no such request.

    Clause 105

      REQUIREMENTS TO BE SATISFIED BY APPROVED SCHEMES
      Mr. Alistair Darling: I beg to move amendment No. 7, in page 69, line 37, leave out
      'subsections (2) and (3) below'
      and insert
      'subsections (1A), (2) and (3) below'.
      The First Deputy Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also amendment No. 6, in page 69, line 38, at end insert—
      '(1A) After paragraph 27 there shall be inserted the following paragraph—
      "27A(1) Subject to paragraph 8 above, the following shall apply:

      (a) Every person eligible to participate in the scheme must be able to do so on similar terms;

      (b) Every person who meets the following conditions must be eligible to participate;

      (i) The person must be an employee or a director of the company, or in the case of group scheme, of a participating company, and

      (ii) The person must be chargeable to tax in respect of his office or employment under Case 1 of Schedule E.

      (2) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (1) above the following shall apply;
      192

      (a) A person participating in a scheme is a person who obtains and exercises rights under the rules of the scheme.

      (b) The fact that the rights obtained and exercised by a person participating in the scheme vary according to the levels of their remuneration, the length of their service or similar factors shall not be regarded as meaning that they are not eligible to participate in the scheme on similar terms.".'.

      Mr. Darling: Amendment No. 7 is a drafting amendment: it is necessary for the incorporation of amendment No. 6.
      The purpose of clause 105 is to allow the Government to implement their new company share option plans, which we broadly welcome. The plans replace the existing share option schemes introduced in the mid-1980s. The new relief involves two essential conditions. The first is the placing of a £20,000 limit on the value of shares that may be held by an employee at any one time. Secondly—perhaps I could attract the Financial Secretary's attention for a moment as I wish to press him on this—the options must be granted at an exercise price
      "not manifestly less than the market value"
      of the shares at the date of grant. In other words, they must not be granted at a discount, which contrasts with the present position. That second condition appears in clause 105(3).
      It would help both the Committee and those who will have to interpret the provision if the Financial Secretary would tell us exactly what "manifestly" means in this context, and what measure we are to apply to it. "Manifestly less" clearly implies more than "slightly less" or "marginally less". Paragraph 29 of schedule 9 of the present scheme provides for a discount of up to 15 per cent. It might be useful if, speaking in percentage or similar terms, the Financial Secretary could tell us whether "manifestly less" means less than 15 per cent. Presumably it does; otherwise, the Government's argument that they are restricting the scope for discount would fall apart.
      I assume that that point will need to be the subject of a guidance note from the Inland Revenue. Otherwise, it will be left to the interpretation of the courts. That is very unsatisfactory. Companies will want to get new schemes under way fairly early, but they might have to wait two to five years, if not longer, for a judicial interpretation. When I saw the words "not manifestly less", it occurred to me that the Government might be saying that they were going to close a door while using a form of words which would result in that door being left as wide open as it is now.
      Before I come to the central issue, I should like the Financial Secretary to deal with a point which arises in the Inland Revenue notes on clauses circulated to members of the Committee. It relates to the old discount of up to 15 per cent. Those who have read the notes, and those who are familiar with the legislation, will know that that discount was available if the company scheme was available to all employees, but if the company subsequently restricted share availability to certain employees, the discount could still be applied.
      Two questions arise from that. First, am I correct in assuming that, along with the 15 per cent. discount, all those arrangements will go? Secondly—here I return to my point about the phrase "manifestly less"—are we to understand that some variability is involved? The position is extremely uncertain.

      193
      Lest the Committee think that I am spending undue time on what might be considered a comparatively small point, let me add that it is necessary to examine the Government's track record on share option schemes to understand our concern. We were told in the Budget statement that the Chancellor wanted to end abuses of the present scheme, as we have pressed the Government to do for many months. Far from closing an avenue for abuse, however, it seems that such an avenue is being opened. Given that many people have ruthlessly exploited and, I believe, abused the present scheme, it would be wrong for us to allow further opportunities for such exploitation and abuse.
      I have raised that issue at the outset because the Financial Secretary's reply will influence our judgment of what the Government have to say about the rest of the legislation. The Government have said that they do not just want to simplify legislation; they want clarity as well. If one is interested in clarity, one should avoid putting into legislation words that are open to 57 different interpretations. The Financial Secretary seems to agree with the spirit of what I have said, as he is nodding vigorously, although he may be doing that simply to pass the time.
      Amendment No. 6 is designed to ensure that the new company share option schemes are open to all employees, from the board room to the shop floor. That is essential if we are to encourage workers to have a stake in the company that employs them. Everyone must be motivated and feel that they are part of the enterprise in which they are employed. All the evidence suggests that companies have recognised the essential truth that the employees who are motivated and intimately involved with their place of work are the ones who will succeed, while those who insist on relying on the old "them and us" approach to industry are likely to fail.
      I have referred to the notes issued by the Inland Revenue in regard to the end of the present discount. I am relying on the information contained there that the discount was available only where there was an all-employee share ownership scheme on offer and that that apparently is to end. The assumption that I and, I believe, many people therefore make is that the new company share option scheme need not be offered to all employees at the workplace. For the reasons that I have stated, it is essential that it should be.
      7.30 pm
      I have been told on numerous occasions that people in senior management and in the boardroom need to receive incentives to make them perform. I am usually told that by the same boardroom members who stand to benefit from these schemes, but I have always believed that, if incentives are good for some people, they are probably good for everyone, and that it is good if people think that by working hard and doing something different—a restructuring in a company, perhaps—they, too, stand to gain. Hon. Members should encourage that.
      Mr. Lofthouse, the history of this matter is relevant to the debate. It entitles us to consider the Government's proposals with a degree of scepticism, although everyone is entitled to take a different view and to change their mind, as the Government did after vehemently opposing
      194
      any idea that the existing share option scheme was being abused, especially by people in the boardrooms of the privatised utilities. The Prime Minister had a sudden change of heart, which took many of his colleagues by surprise. When one considers the abuses that have taken place, especially by people who sit on the boards of the privatised utilities, we are entitled to ask whether the Government have indeed changed their mind and ensured that such abuses will end.
      It upset many people that the same people, doing the same job, received hugely increased salaries only a few weeks after their enterprise had been privatised. They saw those individuals being granted huge amounts of share options. Share prices increased in the privatised utilities, not because of improved performance by people in the boardroom, but because of the way in which those utilities were privatised. Bluntly, they were sold off at knock-down prices. It would have been difficult for anyone appointed to the boardroom of a privatised utility not to receive a substantial windfall gain, not because of anything they did, but as a result of sheer chance.
      Those people did not stop there. Many of them, using current tax laws, as they are entitled to do, ensured that their wives also benefited indirectly from the scheme. That is grossly unfair, when most people have had to face 21 different tax rises since 1992. The burden of taxation for most people has increased. It seemed that there was no limit to the greed of some members of the privatised utilities. As I have said, the Government and the Prime Minister in particular did absolutely nothing until the pressure on them became so great that they had to go along with the Confederation of British Industry's decision to set up the Greenbury committee.
      It has always seemed to me, Mr. Lofthouse, that, in relation to the privatised utilities and sell-offs, the Government were never really bothered about Sid, but were far more bothered about looking after Cedric, which is exactly what the Government did. It was only after pressure that they forced to set up the Greenbury committee.
      Clause 105 resulted from the Chancellor of the Exchequer's reaction to the Greenbury report. It was, as ever, a bungled reaction. On 17 July, the Government announced that they were going to shut down executive share option schemes immediately, but 10 days later the Chancellor had to change his mind as he realised that, in addition to shutting down schemes that many of us would criticise, he was also shutting down schemes that had been used to benefit a majority of employees, which the Government may not have intended.
      At Asda, for example, the executive share option scheme was used to benefit most of the work force. Of course, if the Chancellor's original announcement had been implemented, those people, who were wholly innocent and were simply taking advantage of a scheme that they had been offered—certainly it was small-scale stuff—would have been hit, so the Chancellor had to change his mind.
      I assume that the clause was introduced by the Government in an effort at least to get rid of some of the abuses that Greenbury had identified. If that ending of abuses is to proceed hand in hand with a genuine move to extend opportunities to acquire shares in an enterprise, however, amendments Nos. 7 and 6 must be accepted by the Government. Otherwise, options will be offered only

      195
      to a small class of people—probably those sitting in the boardrooms, whose behaviour has so incensed people, not just in the House, but throughout the country.
      The amendment provides that the option under clause 105 must be made available to all people who are employed in an enterprise and on similar terms—not identical terms, because that is clearly inappropriate. That would ensure that people would see that they too had an opportunity to benefit from whatever option schemes were available in the company. They too would know that any success in the company would be shared. On this point, it is important that all schemes should ensure that there is reward after success, rather than reward in anticipation of success, which is where British Gas went badly wrong.
      Despite our amendment and clause 105, the abuses in the system will continue and are continuing, not only because powerful voices are determined to block the full implementation of Greenbury, but because—unless the Financial Secretary tells us that we are wrong—the present schemes will continue to operate as unapproved rather than approved schemes. If a company wants to fund a scheme, it can do so. If the Financial Secretary can tell us that we are wrong on that, it will be interesting to hear what he says. Unapproved schemes will be able to continue. In a private company, that does not matter—that is its concern—but in the privatised utilities, it does matter. Concerns will remain about that.
      Mr. Lofthouse, we are dealing here with one clause. When the Committee sits upstairs, we shall have an opportunity to consider other aspects of the Government's reform—profit-related pay, and so on. This clause, however, implements the new company share option plan, which most people would broadly welcome, but only if it is a genuine attempt to expand share ownership and participation to the whole work force. In many companies, the opportunity will be taken to offer schemes across the board because many employers are keen to do that. I am concerned, however, that unless this amendment is accepted the people who took part in the abuses that the public, Labour Members and perhaps a smattering of Conservative Members want to stop, will drive a coach and horses through any attempt to reform the system.
      Sir Geoffrey, I have just realised that I have been guilty of a great insult to you for the past 20 minutes: I have overlooked the fact that you are now Sir Geoffrey rather than Mr. Lofthouse. I hope that that is why you were glaring at me, and not because I was straying out of order. Having apologised so fulsomely, I trust that you will not mind if I do stray, although I will do my best not to.
      It is important that we have a new culture in this country and encourage companies genuinely to involve the work force in the enterprise. There are some encouraging signs in many regions, where companies are ensuring that their employees receive genuine share ownership. As I said, I should like those options to be open to everyone from the boardroom to the shop floor. That is what our amendment would achieve.
      I hope that making shares available to more employees will encourage a long-term outlook within a company and therefore a long-term culture, which is something that far too many companies do not have. If that encourages savings, in addition to a pensions scheme and other savings options, it should be welcomed. Shares should reward success, but we must ensure that the success comes before the reward. We should avoid the problems
      196
      that have bedevilled parts of British industry where the reward has been paid willy-nilly and has had nothing to do with success.
      I hope that the Government will accept the amendment. If they do not, that will show people that yet again the Government are concerned with the few in the boardroom and not the many who work in British industry. It will be a touchstone of where the Government stand on the wider case for spreading share ownership to as many people as possible. We believe that it is important to involve people and to change the culture of British industry because that is where future success will lie.
      If the amendment is technically deficient, I am sure that the civil service or the newly privatised draftsmen will be able to produce something better for us. However, if the Government object to the amendment in principle, many people following these proceedings and listening to what the Government have to say will reach the view that although the Government say that they want to end the abuses, in fact they are just continuing them under another name.
      I hope that at the end of the debate the majority in the House will see the merit of ensuring that share ownership schemes are spread to as many people as possible, so that there is genuine participation. We must stop the abuses which benefit a tiny, greedy minority.
      Mrs. Helen Jackson: I hope that the Government accept the amendment, which would widen the meaning of the clause. It is a genuine attempt to be helpful. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) might even have said that the Labour party believes that all those working in an enterprise should have a stake in it. That is important throughout industry. We support employee share ownership in all sectors and commend those where such schemes have been developed.
      The Central Statistical Office share register survey at the end of 1992 clearly shows that, although individuals held about 20 per cent. of all shares—80 per cent. are held by large institutional shareholders—the figure for shares in privatised utilities was 24 per cent. At the time it was said that, after all the publicity given to privatisations, it was surprising that the differential between the two was only 4 per cent. Nevertheless, 4 per cent. represents about 7 million shareholders.
      A National Opinion Poll survey the following year of individual shareholdings in privatised utilities—including those held by lower-grade employees in those utilities—showed a number of token holdings of just one or two shares. However, those token shareholdings gave those employees a stake in their company and allowed them to say their bit at the annual general meeting, which is important. In fact, only a quarter of individual shareholders in the utilities held more than a token number of shares.
      7.45 pm
      I stress that it is not just the major shareholders who need to be encouraged to take a full interest in an enterprise, especially in the privatised utilities. With public service utilities such as the water industry, it is important that all those involved in the business feel that they are playing their part in delivering a quality service to the public. Employees and members of the public are

      197
      entitled to hold token shareholdings, and that should be welcomed. The Opposition recognise that shareholding is not simply about money-making; it is about someone participating in the enterprise where he works.
      There has been a significant increase in individual shareholders in Yorkshire following the water problems in the summer. People saw it as a means to enable them to make their point about what happened. We support any Government measures to increase shareholding and to limit the excesses of industry's fat cats and the executives of the privatised utilities. However, it is still not clear that the Government really want to extend the rights and responsibilities of individual shareholders in those companies.
      I draw the Government's attention to a recent example of where their intentions might have seemed to be good, but in reality they were not interested in listening to individual shareholders. A major public inquiry held on 14 November was attended by individual shareholders, many of them employee shareholders, in Yorkshire Water. The inquiry lasted three days. It is only tonight that the report of that inquiry has been published, even though it was on the desk of the Secretary of State for the Environment on 23 November.
      Individual, including employee, shareholders in Yorkshire Water were concerned about the running of their enterprise. The Government need to ask themselves whether they are hypocritical—a word already used tonight—because they obviously did not recognise those shareholders as important people in that company. They refused to recognise their real concerns, even though they gave evidence to the inquiry over three days. That is unforgivable.
      While the Minister is not responsible for that matter, I am sure that he will take note of this as a good get-out clause. The report went out with a covering letter, in which one must be aware of the double negatives. The letter states:
      "If the Secretary of State had not decided, in the light of Yorkshire Water's request, to defer taking a decision on the application and the report, it would have been necessary to address the many points raised in that report. Since the applications have now been withdrawn, it would now serve no useful purpose to go further into those questions."
      It is disgraceful and arrogant to say to the employees and shareholders in Yorkshire Water who spent three days in Dewsbury giving their evidence that that evidence is not even worthy of consideration. In order to rescue the Government from such hypocrisy, I am sure that the Minister will be keen to accept the amendment. The Government will then make it clear that the measures that they want to put in the Bill will benefit all employees and all shareholders, whatever their position in a company. I look forward to the Minister's response.
      The First Deputy Chairman: I call Mr. Quentin Davies.
      Mr. Quentin Davies: Thank you, Sir Geoffrey—it is a great pleasure to use those last two words.
      I have listened with great interest to the hon. Members for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mrs. Jackson) and for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling). There is no doubt that,
      198
      at first sight, the notion of all share options schemes being automatically available on the same terms to all employees is attractive and appealing. All employees like to feel that they are part of a firm and that they are committed to that firm's success, and such morale is essential if a company is to be successful. But I fear that that appeal—while very obvious—is a little superficial.
      Once again, Labour has not thought through what the consequences would be of implementing a populist policy—in this case, a policy using taxation to achieve certain political purposes relating to the way that industry is run. It is clear that, if share options are ultimately exercised, the existing shareholders will be diluted. In a sense, the whole object of the scheme is that employees and directors who benefit from share option schemes will share in the profits, all of which would otherwise be attributable to the shareholders alone.
      It may be in the interests of the shareholders to make sure that those who contribute specifically to increasing the share price—thereby increasing the value available to the shareholders—do share in that benefit. It is therefore essential that there should be an element of selectivity in the application of the schemes, which are not appropriate as a firm-wide or universal way of remunerating employees. There are many other ways of doing that, including tax-efficient ways provided for by the Government, such as the company employees share scheme, which has been in operation for 10 years or more.
      When one gives employees an option, by definition one is giving them an incentive to increase the value of the shares of the company concerned. The shareholders are saying that they believe that the employees have it in them to make a real contribution. If they increase the value of the shares, the shareholders will give them some benefit or allow them to share in the equity interests of the firm. Such an incentive must be selected and targeted on those employees or directors who are in a position to contribute directly in that way.
      While in some cases it would be quite right to have several different schemes with different rules and amounts for the options in the same company, it would be inappropriate to have share options as a universal scheme. The amendment does not make much sense in terms of achieving the management and motivating objectives of a good share option scheme.
      Mr. Darling: The hon. Member is falling into the old ways of the Conservative party, which hold that the only people who need incentives and to be encouraged and handed out largesse are those at the top, while those at the bottom do not really matter. While it is okay to hand baubles to those at the bottom, it is only those at the top who need tax breaks and other such benefits.
      Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the amendment specifies that schemes have to be made available on similar—not identical—terms? The amendment would make sure that, if the tax system is to be used—in other words, if taxpayers' money in terms of tax forgone is to be used—the maximum number of people should benefit. If company shareholders want to provide benefit to certain individuals over and above that, there is nothing to stop them from doing so, but not through a system subsidised by the taxpayer.
      Mr. Davies: The object of a share option scheme is not that the maximum number of people should benefit but

      199
      that the maximum benefit should be achieved for the shareholders of a company by those who are being asked for their share equity interest. The hon. Gentleman may find some difficulty in following that distinction, but it is a real one. If he had any experience of running a company, I am sure that he would accept it.
      The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central used the word "top"—no doubt demagogically. I was not suggesting at all that only the top people or top management should benefit from a share option scheme. Far from it. In many cases, a quite disproportionate contribution to the success of an enterprise can be made by someone who is not particularly highly ranked in the hierarchy of a company. For example, someone employed in a research-based or hi-tech company might make a fundamental contribution to the future prosperity of that enterprise by inventing a new product or substantially improving an existing one. Perhaps an employee may find some new technique of manufacturing.
      Such people have made a quite exceptional contribution, and it is right that there should be a mechanism available to reward them proportionately. It would not make sense to extend that benefit to every other employee in the company. The same applies to a salesman, who may be quite junior in the hierarchy of a company but who may produce a major contract that may have an enormous impact on the company's prosperity, on the value created for shareholders and—in a case such as that—on the job security of all of his fellow employees.
      The hon. Gentleman has introduced an extraneous element—a total red herring. He may have done so to try to throw sand in the eyes of Conservative Members, but he must know us well enough to know that that would not succeed. He may, on the other hand, be genuinely confused about the matter, in which case I hope that the debate will give him an opportunity to reflect on it.
      Mr. Malcolm Bruce: I have been listening carefully to the hon. Member. Does he acknowledge that the wording of the amendment takes care of his argument? The hon. Gentleman suggests that, because people have different levels of remuneration, we need a mechanism that provides them with the ability to take greater benefits and share options according to earnings or seniority. That matter seems to be built into the amendment. Is not a lot of what the hon. Gentleman says already accounted for? Does he accept that the motivation behind the measure is the degree of public anger at the totally disproportionate amounts of share option benefits that have been given to top management out of all proportion to any reasonable incentive, while people further down in companies are being shut out altogether?
      Mr. Davies: The hon. Member makes two points, which I shall deal with in reverse order. My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer very much accepts the point that the hon. Gentleman makes about the general public outcry at the excessive benefits achieved through share option schemes. In fact, he accepted it some six months or more ago. That is exactly why clause 105 is in the Bill, and why we now have the £20,000 or £30,000 limitation.
      On the hon. Gentleman's first comment, I am afraid that he rather forces me to repeat some of what I have already said. My point was precisely that it was not right that share options should necessarily be allocated in proportion to the salary levels of those who benefit from
      200
      them. Still less would it be right that one should qualify only because one has a high salary or wage. On the contrary, I am saying that it is important that those schemes be so structured that they provide benefits for those who make a disproportionately large individual contribution to the firm—by definition, therefore, a compulsory universality.
      The Labour party always likes to think in terms of compulsion. Everything has to be compulsory and imposed from on high by the Government—one cannot leave companies to run themselves and determine how they run the schemes because Government or civil servants know better. That is the old, old Labour party, and it does not change. That has come through just as strongly in this debate as in so many different contexts in the House.
      8 pm
      Mr. Darling: Does it strike the hon. Gentleman as curious that he is happy to support a Government who impose tax increases on most people, but at the same time support the tax breaks that he wants to focus on the very few? If a tax system is going to be used, it should benefit everyone in the work force. If companies want to give people incentives over and above that, there is nothing in this world to stop them from doing so, but they are not going to be able to receive their current tax break. Is not what we are hearing tonight that the Tory party is up to its old tricks? It is more concerned with Cedric and does not care much about the Sids of the work force.
      Mr. Davies: The hon. Gentleman obviously has not read clause 105, on which his amendment is based, if he thinks that no one cares about the Sids, because the point of the clause is to deal with precisely that point. I am gratified at the way in which the discussion is moving. The hon. Gentleman started off by proposing a certain regime for share options; I criticised it; and, far from tackling my criticism, he has shifted the argument on to the general matter of whether I am in favour of a Government who have greatly increased taxation and so forth. He knows my response to that perfectly well, but I should think, Sir Geoffrey, that you would not want me to deliver it this evening.
      I do not intend to be thrown off my stride. Another important point arose from the speech by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central, and it would be a great mistake to let the debate go by without drawing the attention of the Committee to it. At the outset of the debate on this amendment, perhaps reluctantly or inadvertently—it was in the nature of a Freudian slip—he said that he was concerned that the Government have not taken into account the possibility of firms coming up with an unauthorised scheme that could be very different from the sort to which the tax benefits foreseen in this paragraph have now been more narrowly directed.
      He contradicted that in his subsequent intervention on my remarks, when he said that there is no reason why companies should not do that. He then caught himself. He obviously thought that new Labour should not be in the business of saying that companies cannot do what they like with their own money, even when there is no tax implication. He said, "But, of course, for the private companies"—I think I am quoting him accurately; but Hansard will confirm this—"that might be all right. But for the newly privatised companies, that would not be all right at all."

      201
      The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central—this is characteristic of Labour party thinking, and it has come out well in this debate—is trying to distinguish between private sector companies in general and those private sector companies that were once nationalised. That is an extremely damaging road to go down for a sector of British industry that now has a worldwide reputation.
      The great success of our privatisation programme has not merely been the creation of a new class of small shareholders, but that we have achieved efficiency and productivity gains and turned loss-making nationalised industries into profit-making privatised ones, from which the Exchequer has gained a considerable revenue stream. Those are all enormously important, but there has also been a major development in the structure of British industry. We now have a number of major multi-nationals of global importance in their sectors—some are leaders in their sectors, for example, British Airways, British Telecom, British Steel and British Gas.
      The consequence of the thinking of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central, if ever it were allowed to influence policy formation in this country, would be to stymie those companies—those great success stories—with a regime that is different from that of the rest—
      Mr. Darling: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Davies: I have given way a great deal to the hon. Gentleman. I hope that he will forgive me for not doing so at the moment. I am sure that he will be able to catch your eye again, Sir Geoffrey, if he feels that he needs to do so.
      As a result, it would be extremely difficult for those companies to compete equally with other private sector companies. On executive or directors' share options and the tax treatment of directors or employees of those companies generally, one can envisage exactly what such a differential regime would lead to. Able and successful executives in the newly privatised companies—not so newly privatised in some cases, but almost all extremely successful, with some major multinationals—would be poached by rival companies which could offer more attractive executive share options. It would be a one-way street. No one would want to go from the rest of the private sector into the privatised sector, and that would handicap extremely successful companies—the generators of a great deal of national wealth and employment—with a burden that was unjustified in economic theory, or more importantly, in pure equity, fair play and justice.
      I am sorry to have seen that tendency revealed—we all know that it is there—in such a stark and slightly shocking way in that intervention from the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central. Perhaps it was a slightly involuntary remark.
      Mr. Darling: The hon. Gentleman says that it is only the Opposition who distinguish between the privatised utilities and the generality of private industries. Does he not accept that the public make a distinction in what they regard as unacceptable behaviour in the privatised utilities—not all private companies—and so do the Government, because they regulate those utilities? So everyone except for the hon. Gentleman distinguishes between the privatised utilities and other industries in general.
      Mr. Davies: I do not think that that distinction stands. There is indeed a necessity to regulate natural monopolies, but as we have discovered—we have been path-breakers in the area of privatisation and it is not surprising that the world has come to our door to see how we have done it—many sectors of activity within the utilities are not natural monopolies. Competition can be and is being generated there—competition that could not have been foreseen 10 or more years ago.
      One thinks of the great competition within the telecoms sector, first from Mercury and now from the cable companies. One thinks of the tremendous competition that has come into electricity generation and distribution, and gas extraction and distribution. Only the pipeline, the intermediate part of the gas industry, is in any sense a natural monopoly. Similarly, we have found that it is feasible to generate genuine competition in the running of trains. The natural monopoly that may need to be regulated is the ownership of the track. The distinction drawn by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central is naive and perhaps a little misinformed.
      Mr. David Shaw: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Opposition's campaign was largely based on share options that involved perhaps 40 or 100 people, that the total number of share options at stake was relatively small compared with the fact that in an average electricity company or privatised utility there may be 4,000 or 5,000 relatively junior staff who have share options, and that the opportunity for those people to have share options has been greatly damaged by the way in which the Labour party conducted its campaign?
      Mr. Davies: I agree strongly with my hon. Friend. The Labour party's cynical, demagogic campaign did much damage to those companies, which was unjustifiable, given their record of creating value, exports and employment for our country. I also agree with his remarks about the share option scheme. After the controversies of the past six or nine months, in clause 105—and in my hon. Friend's amendment, which we may have an opportunity to discuss later—we have reached a considered and sensible solution.
      Mr. Pearson: I take issue with the comments of the hon. Member for Stamford and Spalding (Mr. Davies). Not only were the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) about the different regulatory regime that the Government adopt towards the privatised utilities correct, but the Greenbury report was exercised by the abuses of the privatised monopolies.
      The Greenbury report states:
      "There is little doubt that the remuneration committees of a number of companies in the privatised water and energy sectors have developed, perhaps unintentionally, remuneration packages that are richer than is required to recruit, retain and motivate quality managers."
      That strikes me as meaning that remuneration committees have not followed their fiduciary duties to provide sufficient—and no more than that—incentives for managers.
      The Greenbury report continues:
      "Utility directors should command a greater pay premium where there is substantial competition and risk, where there is a wide diversity of activities or an international spread of operations or where significant technological or structural change is under way".

      203
      That, I freely admit, applies to former public companies such as BT, but it does not apply to the water and electricity companies unless we include some of the expensive mistakes that they have made as a result of their diversification programmes.
      The Greenbury report concludes:
      "We strongly recommend that all the privatised utilities in the water and energy sectors should undertake a comprehensive review of their remuneration packages in the light of this report and, if necessary, voluntarily adjust them accordingly."
      The report disagrees with the hon. Member for Stamford and Spalding and says that there is a case for remuneration committees to answer—and quickly.
      8.15 pm
      Mr. Quentin Davies: Does the hon. Gentleman concede that there is all the difference in the world between share options, or other remuneration packages, that were decided upon before flotation and those that may be decided on now or subsequently? In the latter case, there is no justification for considering those companies differently from other private sector plcs.
      Mr. Pearson: There is a clear case for considering such companies differently, because water and electricity companies are still not subject to the full rigours of international and market competition in the way that ordinary private sector companies, and some other privatised companies, are. The hon. Gentleman's argument does not solve the problem. The public are still angry about the abuses of executive pay and share option schemes in the privatised utilities. He misreads public opinion if he thinks that doing nothing about that is acceptable.
      I support the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central about the importance of everyone in the work force benefiting from the legislation. Rather unusually, I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw), who has done much sterling work in persuading the Government to change their mind. I suspect that the chief executive of Asda was probably more influential in achieving that volte-face. The fact is that both Greenbury and the Chancellor of the Exchequer botched it, and finally, we are starting to get legislation that looks sensible. Certainly, no hon. Member would begrudge providing a few shares for shelf stackers, the odd cheque for check-out girls and a little bunce for the boys who push the trolleys round at Asda.
      I remain concerned about two principal issues. First, there is the balance between executive share option schemes and other forms of option schemes such as savings-related option schemes and profit-sharing schemes. Secondly, there is still built into the system an unfairness that our amendment would partially, but not fully, solve. Share option schemes are inevitably geared towards publicly owned, publicly quoted companies.
      In Inland Revenue-approved schemes, the market value of shares in unquoted companies can be negotiated between a private company and the shares valuation division of the Capital Taxes Office. Will the Minister say how many times that takes place? According to Inland Revenue statistics, there are about 4,000 schemes at the moment. My best guess is that the majority of those are schemes with publicly quoted companies.
      I suggest that those private companies that have executive share option schemes run them not for the whole work force but for the few private wealth
      204
      individuals who own the companies and use the scheme as an extra measure of tax planning. I remain concerned that we are providing tax incentives to individuals simply because they happen to work for publicly quoted companies, whereas people who happen to work for unquoted companies, which is still a large proportion of the work force, do not have such tax breaks. We need to examine that.
      I remain to be convinced that share option schemes are encouraging long-term share ownership. They have some benefits as part of an employer's recruitment, retention and motivation strategy. Asda thinks that its share option scheme has been beneficial for staff retention. However, 95 per cent. of people who exercise share options sell them immediately and the average sum involved for individuals who were granted share options, which was given by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury in a debate on 25 October, was £45,000 in 1994–95. When the Asda employees and other shop-floor workers are stripped out of that calculation—averages can be misleading—we find that a limited number of individuals receive substantial options.
      Many quoted companies are now thinking about moving away from traditional option schemes, and I welcome Greenbury's injunction on them to do so. Traditional share option schemes must be weighed against other kinds of long-term incentive schemes. I welcome the fact that companies are now beginning to introduce more relative performance criteria. I also welcome moves by many major companies to ensure that, if share options are to be granted, they will be granted for five years or more, even if they are part of approved option schemes.
      I welcome the Government's change of heart in terms of not completely excluding share option schemes and introducing a £20,000 limit. It is important, however, that the amendment is adopted on grounds of fairness, because everyone in the work force should be allowed to benefit from such a tax break.
      The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Michael Jack): This has been a quiet but interesting debate. As the Opposition are now willing to embrace the whole ethic and philosophy of matters associated with share ownership, I now understand why they have played first consideration of this matter, in the context of the Finance Bill, in the svelte tones of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling).
      Mr. Darling: Svelte?
      Mr. Jack: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman is not aware of the meaning of svelte. He gave a smooth, quiet, well-mannered and thoughtful presentation of his party's case. He may have done that so that the outside world would not be reminded of the history of how we reached this position.
      Mr. Darling: I remember it very well.
      Mr. Jack: The hon. Gentleman says that he remembers it very well. Let me take him on a little voyage of all our yesterdays, because it is important to put the amendment into some context.
      The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mrs. Jackson) made a telling intervention, and my hon. Friend the Member for Stamford and Spalding

      205
      (Mr. Davies) reminded us of her words. I am delighted that Opposition Members welcome what we are about this evening.
      However, this is the same party that objected to the British Aerospace work force having a stake in their enterprise. Some 89 per cent. of the work force acquired shares in that company because of the special terms offered. The Labour party also opposed the privatisation of British Telecom, yet this evening they advocate all-employee share option schemes. A staggering 95 per cent. of British Telecom's work force bought a stake in the company after its privatisation had been opposed by the Opposition. Indeed, 99 per cent. of British Gas's employees bought a stake in their company after the Labour party opposed its privatisation.
      I suppose that I must welcome the fact that the sinners are repenting and are now endorsing a policy that has enabled shareholding to rise from some 3 million when we came into office to some 10 million today.
      Mr. Quentin Davies: I am anxious that my hon. Friend should always be just in his observations about the Labour party. Has not the Labour party always opposed the idea of directors acquiring options or shares before a company is floated? Did my hon. Friend see the article in the Financial Times of 18 January last year, which said:
      "Mr. Peter Snape, MP for West Bromwich, East and Opposition spokesman on transport, admitted that he had accepted options on 40,000 shares in his capacity as non-executive director of West Midlands Travel. The Birmingham-based bus company was taken out of local authority hands in a management-led workers buy out in December 1991. Preparations are being made for flotation, possibly in the autumn."
      Is it not nice to know that at least some Labour Members are enterprising when it comes to opportunities for acquiring shares on a pre-flotation and no doubt private sweetheart deal basis?
      The First Deputy Chairman: Order. That was a long intervention.
      Mr. Jack: I hope that my reply will be shorter, Sir Geoffrey.
      I am sorry that the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) is not in his place this evening, because he should have an opportunity to explain to the House why he made a principled attack against the proposal for privatising bus services but was prepared to put that to one side and enjoy the benefits of share options, which the policy that he opposed enabled him to have. He may have been ahead of his time, judging by the events referred to only a few hours ago at Prime Minister's Question Time. It is interesting to see the juxtaposition between the principled stand in public and the private change for private gain. My hon. Friend is right, and I congratulate him on his forensic skills in digging that article out.
      The amendment has been tabled by the same party that voted against the save-as-you-earn scheme during the Committee stage of the Finance Bill in 1980. In a relatively short time, our policies have woven their magic and Labour Members are now coming round to our way of thinking. If a sinner repenteth, it must be applauded.
      Mr. Darling: We are all concerned that this debate should be accurate, and the Minister will no doubt recall
      206
      that the last Labour Government first introduced employee share ownership schemes before he and I were in the House. I do not see much advantage in going into these matters in the context of the amendment. Will the Minister simply tell us whether he supports the amendment, or is he happy to side with his hon. Friends in ensuring that the privileged few will benefit from the Government's measures?
      Mr. Jack: I shall come to that in due course. I do not disagree with the hon. Gentleman's point about history, but something clearly happened around 1980 to change Labour Members' minds on this matter. In fairness, the hon. Gentleman welcomed the company share option plan and attempted to make a fist of amending it. However, people must be reminded where the Opposition are coming from because, in recent times, they have made much of the virtues of owning some kind of stake in something but have done little to acknowledge that we are the true pioneers in that area.
      The hon. Gentleman asked me a straight question: do we support his amendment? Before explaining why we do not, I wish to pick him up on one point. It is typical of Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen to get into their minds a sound nibble such as, "The Tories only want this scheme for the benefit of a few rich, well-heeled people", and to keep repeating it.
      I remind the hon. Gentleman of events that occurred on 17 July when my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor, having acquired the knowledge of what was in the Greenbury report, moved very quickly to address those concerns and deal with the question at the heart of the hon. Gentleman's probing. As a result of a healthy debate, we now have a scheme on the stocks—the company share option plan in the Finance Bill—that addresses precisely the issue that the hon. Gentleman mentioned. I am sure that he would not disagree that the proposal in the Bill is moderate in terms of who may benefit from share option plans. I believe that the measure addresses his concern, and I hope that we are at one on that. I think that the facts speak for themselves.
      One interesting point that we have forgotten is that other all-employee schemes exist. I shall develop that point later, but I first wish to mention a couple of technical points about which the hon. Gentleman asked me. I do not want them to be lost in my general remarks—I listened carefully to what the hon. Gentleman said. He spent some time asking me about the definition of the term "manifestly less". I shall try to deal with the subject carefully as I should hate to mislead the hon. Gentleman or for somebody to read what I say in Hansard and get the wrong impression.
      8.30 pm
      The set of words repeats the definition used in the old executive share option scheme which the hon. Gentleman, as a lawyer, may have studied carefully. The phrase "manifestly less" has become well known in law since 1984. It means: not less by any amount that can be measured—in practice, not less at all. I hope that that clarifies the position—[Laughter.] I have to give the explanation in language that lawyers understand. The hon. Member for Dudley, West (Mr. Pearson) may sometimes have difficulty with lawyers' language, but the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central is a lawyer and I

      207
      would expect him to understand it. I also expect him to have studied what happened in 1984. Having defined "manifestly less" in legal terms, I will say more simply that shares should not be granted under option at below the market price. That can be understood in everyday language.
      Mr. Darling: I appreciate the Minister's reference to 1984. If it is the Government's intention that the price should not be less at all, and as we are all in favour of plain English, why do not the Government break new ground and simply put "less than at all"? Then everyone in the House and, more importantly, outside it, would fully understand. The problem of relying on legal decisions is that lawyers have historically made a lot of money arguing about what is meant. If what is meant is "not less at all", why not say it?
      Mr. Jack: For the sake of precision, I perhaps embroidered the words a little. To put the matter beyond misadventure, I shall write to the hon. Gentleman and spell out the precise terms. I shall place a copy of the letter in the Library of the House, so that we can all study it for our greater benefit.
      The hon. Gentleman also asked about the 15 per cent. discount. In practice, very few companies use the 15 per cent. discount provisions, and the new company share option plan does not, as the hon. Gentleman's first question suggested, allow a discount to be available. The previous facility was available only if a company also had an all-employee scheme. I hope that I have dealt with the two specific points that the hon. Gentleman raised.
      Having welcomed what the hon. Gentleman said in his opening remarks about the proposal of a company share option plan, I should remind him that we already have two existing tax-relieved all-employee schemes: the profit-sharing and the savings-related plans. They were introduced on an all-employee basis to stimulate wider employee share ownership across the board at an affordable Exchequer cost. The objective of the executive option relief introduced in 1984 was different: it was specifically designed to enable companies to reward key employees with options over shares that would increase in value prospectively in response to their hard work and commitment.
      As my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor explained in July last year, we believe that companies that wish to give incentives to key employees in that way no longer need a tax relief. A variety of option schemes and other long-term incentive arrangements offer alterative ways of linking executive rewards to corporate performance, and none of them qualifies for special tax treatment.
      The spirited and constructive debate that started in July last year as a result of my right hon. and learned Friend's announcement that he was going to withdraw tax relief on the existing executive share option scheme revealed that there was a demand for a third type of employee share ownership scheme in addition to the two existing all-employee schemes to provide a more flexible way of granting options to lower-paid employees. That explanation addresses one of the concerns expressed by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central when he spoke about who would benefit.
      The debate stirred up the issue—the hon. Gentleman exemplified that by mentioning Asda, but that company was not alone. Many other retailers also expressed a wish
      208
      to sustain such a scheme. They wanted to target their schemes at the more modestly paid of their employees, such as middle managers and even those on the shop floor. We listened carefully, but the companies that made those representations made it clear that they did not want a compulsory all-employee scheme. My hon. Friend the Member for Stamford and Spalding adverted to that in his telling contribution when he said that there was a difference in every respect between the Government and the Opposition because the Opposition always want to seek compulsion whereas we seek an element of choice.
      Those self-same companies wanted to be free to design their schemes as they wished, and to structure them so that they could reward loyalty. If every employee who was with the company on the day that the options were granted had to receive some options—as the amendment suggests—it would be impossible for company share option plans to be used to reward loyalty. That is the first reason why I am unable to accept the amendment.
      Mr. Darling: The option is always open to companies.
      Mr. Jack: If the hon. Gentleman wants to tell me what it is, he can always intervene. The sedentary debate is perhaps not entertaining the House. I see that the hon. Gentleman is not pushing his point, so I shall continue.
      There is an important point to make in relation to smaller companies. The share capital of small companies is a valuable and limited asset. It would simply not be appropriate for such a company to have to grant options to all its employees when it wanted to grant options. In that context, where would the Opposition draw the line? I do not think that they have thought through the effect of the amendment in reality as it shows a clear lack of understanding about small companies.
      Today I received a further, supporting piece of evidence that I feel duty bound to put before the House. It came in a letter from the director general of the Institute of Directors, Mr. Tim Melville-Ross, dated 23 January. He said:
      "Specifically, we do not support the proposal that all employees should be eligible for share options rather than the allocation being at the discretion of management (which is the current position). Replacing management's discretion to provide share options as incentives by the principle of universality represents, in our view, another restriction and inflexibility on business."
      Those are telling words. The letter continued:
      "Moreover, the amendment ignores the particular problems in the unquoted company…It is common in a private company to have to offer share options to attract and motivate one or two key people."
      I saw that fact for myself when I visited a fibre optics company called Coe in Leeds. Representations were made to me by the company asking whether the Government could restore a share option scheme—similar to the one that we have introduced—precisely because it had problems attracting a top-quality sales director when it could afford only a limited salary. I believe that the scheme that we have now entirely meets that company's wishes, since the company wanted to focus its scheme on that specific need.
      For the reasons that I have given, we should have respect for the difficulties of the small company share structure.

      209
      I remind Opposition Members that the new company share option plan tax relief is part of a wider package, which includes substantial improvements to both the existing all-employee share schemes.
      The hon. Member for Dudley, West asked about the scope and scale of those schemes. It is interesting to note that about 80 per cent. of listed companies have one or more approved schemes, about 55 per cent. of the companies that have one or more approved schemes are unlisted and about 40 per cent. of companies that have one or more approved schemes have an all-employee scheme. It is interesting that it is in the profit-sharing and save-as-you-earn schemes, in which about 2 million people are involved, that all-employee activity is very widely spread.
      The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central, very properly, asked whether we had considered the scope of who was able to benefit from share participation—whether participation was restricted to a narrow group. I hope that he is now aware, as a result of that exemplification of the numbers involved in the save-as-you-earn and the profit-sharing schemes, that those benefits are very widely available to all employees. I say that because it demonstrates clearly why companies wish to have one other scheme that they can tailor to meet the individual needs of their business. As the Institute of Directors rightly guides us, companies want some flexibility in how they will go about that, especially bearing in mind the special position of the smaller company and its share structure.
      For those very good reasons, I believe that we should respect the right of choice. That is what fundamentally separates the Government and the Labour party. Conservative Members believe passionately in the fact that people should have an opportunity to participate in the equity of their company. We have two schemes, which are available already, on an all-employee basis, so it is right that we, as the party of choice, recognise that companies should be free to choose a scheme to meet their needs.
      I say to the hon. Gentleman, there is nothing in the way in which that scheme is specified that prevents any company, if it so wishes, from making the scheme an all-employee scheme.
      Mr. Darling: Does not the Minister, by his own words, admit that he has certainly given the choice to companies, but it is also choice to deny their work force the chance to participate in share ownership schemes? In other words, it is not giving a choice to the many. Labour Members believe that everyone should have choices in this world, not only the few.
      Mr. Jack: We believe in choice by persuasion. [Interruption.] I am sorry, I must return to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central. Perhaps he can help me with a word or two of reassurance. He is interested in all employees having an opportunity to participate in the company. I shall give him an opportunity to show the truth of his credentials.
      There is a privatisation scheduled for a few months—that of Railtrack. Railtrack has said that it will not have an executive share option scheme but it does want its employees to participate fully in the company by holding
      210
      shares. I will give way to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central if he wants. Will he now commit himself? It might be difficult to bring your party with you, but take a personal view. I give you the opportunity to say, "I welcome the commitment to the privatisation of Railtrack and the opportunity for the staff to own shares in the company." Will you interrupt me and tell me—
      The First Deputy Chairman: Order. On several occasions, the Minister used the word "you". I am not responsible.
      Mr. Jack: The enthusiasm of my argument has led me again to cause you to interrupt, Sir Geoffrey; thank you for correcting me.
      I ask the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central, through the Chair, is he able to tell me—having had a little extra thinking time—that he would like the employees of a privatised Railtrack to have that opportunity, or does he wish, by opposing that privatisation, to deny those employees that opportunity to own shares?
      Mr. Darling rose—
      Mr. Jack: I give way. This could be historic.
      Mr. Darling: I am grateful to the Financial Secretary. He must realise that we are arguing about the opportunity to ensure that, in companies throughout the country, there is the widest opportunity for many to participate in those companies' success. The argument about the privatisation of Railtrack and rest of the railway network has nothing to do with that, as well he knows. I suspect that I speak, not only for Opposition Members, but for a majority in the country, who want nothing whatever to do with breaking up the rail network. That process is purely designed to satisfy a tiny minority in the country, and the vast majority of the public would suffer as a result. It has nothing to do with the amendment, as well the Financial Secretary knows.
      Mr. Jack: I think—
      The First Deputy Chairman: Order. The Minister would be wise not to go down that track. The privatisation of the railways has nothing to do with the debate.
      8.45 pm
      Mr. Jack: I entirely take your guidance, Sir Geoffrey, but that answer is another example of Labour hypocrisy, because, as I said earlier in response to an intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Stamford and Spalding, when the Opposition choose to deny something, they will follow that, but when it comes to personal gain, as we saw with reference to the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East, we know what the answer is. The hon. Gentleman was unable to give me the satisfaction that I sought.
      On the basis of the amendment, which has been—
      Mr. Darling: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Jack: I wish to—
      Mr. Darling: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sure that the Minister did not mean it, but, as I

      211
      understand it, one is not supposed to accuse hon. Members of hypocrisy in the House and I deeply resent the suggestion that I am guilty of hypocrisy about Railtrack. I think it might be better—
      Mr. Richard Ottaway: Hypocrisy is a sensitive subject today!
      Mr. Darling: The Whip speaks from a sedentary position.
      Privatisation of Railtrack is a matter of concern to this country. The Financial Secretary might be better dealing with the merits of his argument—which, I am bound to say, I struggle to see—instead of indulging in this silly sort of thing, which might go down well in the Conservative party bar room but is not terribly suitable for debate.
      The First Deputy Chairman: Order. I did not understand that the Minister was using the word "hypocrisy" regarding an individual. If he was, I am sure that he would wish to withdraw it.
      Mr. Jack: I would never wish to insult any hon. Member on a personal basis, and if the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central thought that that is what I said, let me say to him that I unreservedly withdraw any smear on him as an individual. As you rightly said, Sir Geoffrey, my use of the word "hypocrisy" was in the context of the Labour party as a collective, not the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central. I would not want in any way to go beyond that.
      There is another technical hitch in the amendment. I was surprised to see that it would require part-time directors to participate in the scheme. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central may have overlooked the fact that the guidelines for institutional investors, which are produced by the Association of British Insurers, state very clearly that part-time directors should not participate in share option schemes. That is an important factor, and another reason why I am unable to accept the hon. Gentleman's amendment.
      We have had a very thorough debate. The Conservative party is the party of wider share ownership. I welcome the Opposition's endorsement of the company share option scheme, but I hope, for the reasons given, that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central will understand why, at this stage, I am unable to accept his amendment.
      Mr. Tipping: I am pleased to have had the opportunity to listen to the Financial Secretary's remarks. I generally welcome the changes to executive share options that are set out in the Finance Bill. The Financial Secretary made some historical references early in his speech, and perhaps it is worth remembering how the clause came to be a part of the Finance Bill.
      We should remember that the Government vacillated over the Greenbury report, which formed the basis of the clause. Some of us argued that the Government should have done the work themselves. The Government's response to Greenbury can only be described as erratic. The Chancellor reacted quickly on 17 July, but he lived to rue that day. Archie Norman and the employees of Asda forced him to change his mind by pointing out that the Chancellor's actions did not fit the bill.
      212
      The amendment is important because it seeks to extend the share option scheme, as laid down in the Finance Bill, to all employees. It requires that, in order for a scheme to be approved, all employees and directors must be able to participate on equal terms. I was interested to hear the Financial Secretary's remarks about choice: he argued that our amendment should be rejected because it forbids choice.
      The Asda episode shows—as the amendment does—that we want choice for all. We want all employees to have the opportunity to participate in a scheme of that kind. That is fundamentally important. If we were to follow the track laid down by the Financial Secretary, we could return very quickly to the bad old days of perks for a few and a handicap for the majority of the work force. I believe that "choice" means that everyone should be able to choose: all employees should have the right to participate in share option schemes. That is why the amendment is so important.
      It is also important to recognise that the share option issue has generated real public concern. People come to my surgery and talk about the benefits and the perks that the fat cats, as they call them, have enjoyed under share option schemes in the past. They find it hard to understand why the newly privatised gas, electricity and water industries offer such perks. I believe that the public's view resonates very strongly: everyone who is involved in those industries should have the same right to choose.
      As I am talking about those who attend my surgeries, I shall mention two firms about which people have relayed their concerns. I refer first to East Midlands Electricity. I know the company well and I have a great deal of respect for it. I remind the Financial Secretary that the company's former chairman and chief executive, John Harris—whom I hold in high regard—left the company with a very good pay-off of reportedly £1 million, partly in share options. The second company that local people raise with me is Severn Trent. Its former chairman, John Billock—whom I know and admire—also left that company with a big pay-off.
      The Financial Secretary talked at length about the need to reward success. In both the cases that I mentioned, the gentlemen involved left their respective companies in rather unfortunate circumstances. Their pay-offs were not so much a measure of success and a reward for that success as a way of getting them out of the way quickly. In the case of East Midlands Electricity, it is clear that the company diversified, bought into electricity contracting and then caught a cold. It was forced to refocus on the core business under new management.
      I know the new management of East Midlands Electricity well, and I am pleased to hear it say that it is sceptical about the value of share options. It takes the view that they have given the company and the entire industry a bad name. The former chairman of Severn Trent, Mr. Billock, also left partly because of difficulties with the company's performance. It is okay to reward success; I agree with that fundamentally.
      Mr. John Marshall: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that point emphasises the merits of a different recommendation of the Greenbury committee regarding the length of service contracts? If we were to reduce the length of such contracts to one year, many large pay-offs would not occur. It has more to do with the length of service contracts than with share options.
      Mr. Tipping: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. The length of service issue is important. Like him, I would

      213
      like to see more short-term contracts of about one year's duration. At Severn Trent, the diversification into waste disposal and the acquisition of Biffa led to problems within the company.
      The public find it hard to believe that the chief executives at East Midlands Electricity and Severn Trent did the same job in the privatised industry as when the companies were under public ownership. They also find it hard to accept the monopoly position that put the companies into such advantageous positions. They do recognise that, at the end of the day, the whole company is underwritten—there is a safety net—by its ability to raise prices. If things go wrong, the consumer will pay.
      The employees of the newly privatised utilities will also be affected. The Financial Secretary was rather dismissive of the scare stories—as he put it—about executive share options and the perks that the top men in such companies enjoy. We must remember that many employees of the water and electricity companies, in particular, have lost their jobs. The companies have achieved success through efficiency measures, and the most basic efficiency measure is to reduce the number of staff.
      I have a lot to do with National Power. Its officers have been extremely generous in their willingness to show me around the company and to talk with me. I do not have any financial interest in the company—I can see that the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) is listening to me very closely. The management of National Power has allowed me the latitude to walk around the company and to discuss the past and the future. About two thirds of the company's employees have lost their jobs. At the same time, the executives of the company have seen their pay explode. I look forward to watching the share options, the salaries and the pensions of people in the generating industry.
      Only the other day, I was looking closely at the share prices of electricity companies. The prices have fallen, for reasons that are not entirely in the companies' control, but on which they have some input. I look forward to seeing whether the executives' benefits fall as well.
      If the amendment were implemented, it would lead to some fundamental changes in the way that companies operate in the United Kingdom. There would be more transparency, because all employees would be involved. I and others find it hard to discover the real benefits being given to directors and chief executives of newly privatised industries. If all employees had the right to be members of a share option scheme, that would lead to greater transparency.
      Mr. Jack: I agree with the hon. Member that it is a good idea to have employee participation in companies. However, there is some evidence that, if there were to be a scheme such as that to which the amendment refers, some companies might decide that they did not want to run a company share option scheme. Does the hon. Member think that that is a risk worth running?
      9 pm
      Mr. Tipping: That may be a risk, but it is a choice for the company. I feel strongly that the benefits of such schemes would outweigh the disadvantages enormously. The first benefit would be transparency. The second
      214
      benefit would be that everyone in the company would have a sense of stakeholding and shareholding. The schemes would be a recognition that people were companies' greatest assets and they would make companies realise that they should invest in and add value to people. The amendment clearly would do that.
      If people had a shareholding or stakeholding in the company, it would lead to a long-term view. People who work for major companies are committed to their success. For example, the coal miners who work for Coal Investments Ltd. gave up their holidays when the company was in trouble over Christmas and went in to work. The schemes suggested in the amendment would reinforce that view.
      Companies should be open, transparent and fair to everybody, not just to the few, and they should take a long-term rather than a short-term view. That is why I support the amendment.
      Mr. David Shaw: May I extend my apologies to the House? On the flight back from the European Parliament, where I was today attending the Labour and Social Affairs Committee, I was delayed at a border control at Brussels airport which, according to everything we are told, does not exist. It was very real.
      I am speaking in the debate because I have long had an interest, although not a personal, pecuniary interest, in how employees should be rewarded and share in the success of their companies. I have never had share options myself, but over the years I have sat on the boards of one or two companies and awarded share options to certain individuals. The decision-making process has been interesting, as has seeing the way in which share options can reward people.
      I have always made a practice of looking not just at directors or managers as recipients of share options but at secretaries and middle and lower management, to encourage a broad spectrum of employees. We did not necessarily award share options to every member of the company. There were often good reasons for not awarding the options to some individuals. Sometimes, sadly, it might have been better if individuals had got a job elsewhere, and sometimes people were relatively new to the company and were still untried and untested.
      I also have a long-standing interest in share options from a constituency point of view. During the 1987 election—the one that got me into the House—we were shown around the Buckland paper mill, which was lucky enough to be visited also by someone called Kenneth Clarke, now known to the House as the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Kenneth went around the paper mill and met the secretaries and typists, who were fully aware of the success of their company. They were interested in the share price and in how the mill was performing as part of a larger group.
      The thing that impressed the current Chancellor was that those people's share options gave them an added interest in the company—they felt that they were part-owners of it. That feeling extended down to the shop floor, where the mill produced Conqueror paper, which is famous not just because it is used in the House of Commons but because it is unquestionably one of the best papers in the world.
      The people in the company took great pride in owning part of the manufacturing process. They were thoroughly involved at every stage and, because of their share

      215
      options, were keen on the success of the company. That is why I have a passion for share options as a way of motivating company employees.
      The employees of P and O in my constituency—hundreds of them—also own share options. Junior onshore staff and more senior officers on board the ferries that make Dover a successful part of the country participate in share option schemes, which are clearly beneficial to many people in my constituency.
      Within a month of his appointment as Financial Secretary, the Minister rapidly apprised himself of an enormous amount of information once the debate on share options got under way, and I thank him for that. We were both shocked by how complex some of the details of the argument can be, but we discovered that fundamental misconceptions surround share options and share option schemes. All the focus on fat cats and directors diverted attention from the hundreds of thousands of employees who were benefiting and who had benefited from share options. We should not forget that just under 1 million people are in this category; I hope that that number will be exceeded under a Conservative Government in the near future.
      Another key misconception concerns the fact that people forget that these are approved discretionary share options. They became known as executive share options, however. Although it was often envisaged in the early stages that senior management and top people would be the main beneficiaries, it was soon discovered that junior employees—secretaries, typists, bank clerks—would also be significant beneficiaries, and rapidly became so. We found, in short, that the social spectrum was much more widely covered by share options than many people expected. They rapidly became another element in the expansion of democratic capitalism.
      I was delighted to read all the research showing just how wide and deep the ownership of share options had become—just like the ownership of shares.
      Mr. Denis MacShane: The hon. Gentleman will have read today that Mr. Archie Norman, a wannabe Tory Member, has just cashed in £3 million in share options—a modest addition to his private fortune. The problem was that the Asda share price dropped by 3p, thereby wiping out a considerable part of the value of the shares of ordinary investors in Asda. Which is more important—the immense gain that Mr. Norman has pocketed, or maintaining the value of the Asda shares in which many ordinary investors, through their personal equity plans and unit trusts, may have placed their faith?
      Mr. Shaw: When Archie Norman went into Asda, the company was flat on its back; it was suffering badly from competition from supermarket chains that were much more successful, and 37,000 of its employees faced the possibility of losing their jobs during the recessionary period if it had gone under. It was very close. It was within a whisker of going under. Archie Norman rescued the company. I have spoken to a number of his junior employees and not one of them begrudges him his share option profits. They are happy that he rescued their jobs and the company.
      It also benefits consumers because it is one of the most competitive companies in terms of getting price reductions. It has forced the abolition of the net book
      216
      agreement, and many books are much cheaper than before. It is putting pressure on a number of other restrictive practice agreements or other price arrangements that exist, and it is forcing down quite successfully the price of a number of products.
      Asda's chief executive should benefit not just because he has benefited the employees but because he has benefited consumers and others in this country enormously. The Treasury has also benefited because Asda is paying quite a few millions in corporation tax, which, if it had gone bankrupt, it would not have paid.
      Mr. John Marshall rose—
      Mr. Shaw: I give way to my hon. Friend.
      The First Deputy Chairman: Order. Before the hon. Gentleman gives way, I am afraid that he has allowed himself to stray from the amendment, probably because of the question from the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane). He should now relate his remarks to the amendment before us.
      Mr. Marshall: On Asda and share options, will my hon. Friend confirm—to answer those who are concerned about Asda shareholders—that, under the guidance of Mr. Norman, Asda shareholders have seen the share price treble, which is quite a good achievement? Even the hon. Member for Rotherham might give an alpha double plus.
      Mr. Shaw: There is no doubt that, if "stakeholder" has any meaning whatever, one can truly say that all the stakeholders in Asda have truly benefited under Archie Norman and the Conservative Government who have made the environment right for them to benefit.
      I now return to some of the key points. My hon. Friend the Financial Secretary was kind enough earlier in the summer to see me to discuss share options and to listen to some of my concerns and those of a number of organisations and others. I realised that he had considerable experience of option, incentive and share schemes from his involvement in companies—in the years before he came into Parliament—and that he had observed the benefits that tying in staff, in a way that gives them an interest in the company, can produce. I was grateful to him for the sympathetic way in which he listened.
      When a Minister moves to a new Department, especially the Treasury, it is always interesting to see the extent of his commitment to some of our fundamental policies, and whether perhaps the Treasury atmosphere rapidly gets the better of him. I was delighted that my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary was able to assure me of his commitment to a shareholding democracy. He was able to assure me that he, like me, is proud of the fact that there are 11 million shareholders compared with 3 million when we got into office, and that 16 million people have life assurance policies and pension policies. I was also pleased that the Prime Minister is committed to widening share ownership. I felt, therefore, that there was a chink of light, that it was possible to push open the door, not only in relation to keeping share schemes but to seeing whether they could be better targeted at the very people whom we want to help.

      217
      It was apparent from discussions with my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary that he wanted to look after the thin cats and even, perhaps, one or two of the thinner cats who were putting on just a modicum of weight but were well short of becoming fat cats. I am delighted that his work during the summer and the work on the Budget have produced this share option scheme. It is important that my hon. Friend has recognised that share options are about giving people the incentive to create jobs. It was apparent that he had some knowledge in that area.
      Let me recap some of the benefits of share option schemes and their purpose. The fat cat/thin cat debate has sometimes taken us off the main track.
      The First Deputy Chairman: Order. This is not a clause stand part debate but a debate on the amendment. The hon. Gentleman should confine his remarks to that.
      9.15 pm
      Mr. Shaw: I shall try to ensure that I keep to the point. The implications of the amendment are in danger of not being fully understood unless one focuses on the purpose of share option schemes.
      One of the key purposes of share option schemes is to help lower and middle income employees. Another is as a source of equity finance. I am not saying that the amendment would necessarily damage those, but it would begin to move the share option schemes away from some of their original purposes.
      As well as encouraging a share-owning democracy, the number of share option schemes demonstrates how effective they are. My hon. Friend the Financial Secretary said that the amendment could damage the number of share option schemes that people might want to set up in the future, so we should not support it.
      Loyalty is regarded as a key issue in the awarding of share options, but the amendment would remove the loyalty incentive. It would mean that everyone could have share options regardless of their loyalty to the company and regardless of how management and directors saw that loyalty helping the company's performance.
      In addition, there must be flexibility within high technology companies. The amendment might remove such flexibility, because high-technology companies will have to reserve the share options with a little bit extra for some of the high-tech and skilled staff that they need to retain.
      We also need to consider whether the amendment would encourage the development of the common interest between employees and shareholders. If employees feel that they will get something automatically as of right simply because they work in the company, it is not quite the same as if they are given an incentive to produce the extra value in the company which will benefit its shareholders and employees. The amendment is not in line with the basic philosophy behind share option schemes, so I cannot support it.
      Share option schemes are often used as a substitute for pension schemes in small companies that cannot afford conventional pension schemes. That may not be contrary to the amendment, but the amendment will not necessarily assist.
      218
      As I discovered, share option schemes are often used to help inward investment. American companies are keen on United Kingdom employees benefiting from the share option schemes of the parent company in America, and that is possible under the law. I am not certain that the amendment would work in favour of such an arrangement. My hon. Friend might wish to consider that when he replies.
      The amendment might make life difficult for such American companies, many of which want to put their British employees on parallel employee remuneration and incentive packages as the American companies' employees in the United States. All those arguments show why the Government are right to bring in the new scheme and why the amendment is not quite right.
      Sir Richard Greenbury was mentioned earlier. I remind the House that his report concerned directors. When I spoke to him, he told me that he did not intend his proposals to affect arrangements for share options further down the income scale and further down the hierarchy within companies: he did not intend them to have any impact on shop girls, supervisors or even junior managers. The amendment is rather dangerous. Some companies will want to make share options available to all employees; others will want to make them available to only a small number, which I do not think is necessarily wrong.
      I am delighted with the way in which the Government have approached the matter so far, and I hope that I can express further delight when we debate a later amendment tabled in my name. Amendment No. 6 would make share option schemes too rigid, and might damage some of them. As my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary has suggested, some companies might even not implement schemes as a result. If the amendment were passed, people might be entitled to share options regardless of their performance. Schemes should operate with some flexibility, allowing the benefit of share options to be earned only by employees whose performance makes their companies successful. I shall vote against the amendment if it is put to a vote.
      Mr. Mike O'Brien: As the Financial Secretary said, this has been a good and thorough debate.
      The Government's main objection to the amendment seems to be that it would benefit too many people. So much for their idea of a shareholding democracy. After 16 years of Tory government, only 17 per cent. of shares are owned by individual shareholders; that is the lowest percentage for a very long time, perhaps the lowest percentage ever.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) welcomed clause 105 as far as it went, but Opposition Members feel that it does not go far enough—hence the amendment. In an effective speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mrs. Jackson) pointed out that the Labour party approved not only of employee share ownership, but of the granting of share options. She also said that most employee shareholdings were small or even token. She pointed out that Asda, for instance, has 36,000 shareholding employees, which is welcome, but none of those employees is in the same league as the fat cats in the privatised utilities. As the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) observed, a distinction must be drawn between the fat cats and those whom he described as the thin cats. I shall return to the hon. Gentleman's speech when he is less busy than he appears to be at present.

      219
      My hon. Friend the Member for Hillsborough also spoke of her experience of the hypocrisy issue, as she described it, at the Yorkshire Water annual general meeting. Our agenda deals with the points that she raised: it seeks to help all shareholders, not just employee shareholders. The amendment fits well within that overall agenda.
      The hon. Member for Stamford and Spalding (Mr. Davies) suggested that Labour's policy was "populistic". I suspect that it will indeed be popular, just as I suspect that his and the Financial Secretary's appeal for selectivity in granting share options will have much less popular appeal.
      The hon. Member for Stamford and Spalding condemned the Labour party for distinguishing between privatised utilities and other plcs. I noticed that the Financial Secretary seemed to squirm at that because, as he knows, the Government make that distinction in terms of the regulatory regime that they impose.
      A highlight of the debate occurred when my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, West (Mr. Pearson) paid tribute to the hon. Member for Dover, who, during the great debate on these matters last year, helped to expose the Government's inadequacies in terms of their share options policy. Perhaps I may discomfit him still more by echoing that praise from the Labour Front Bench. I know that he takes a genuine and, it seems from his speech, informed interest in these matters. He went so far as to bring "Ken", as he described him, to talk about these matters to his constituents, who I am sure were greatly thrilled by that visit.
      The First Deputy Chairman: Order. I hesitate to intervene, but the word "Ken" has now been used twice. I am sure that both hon. Members know that we do not refer in the Chamber to people's names—the hon. Gentleman should say," the right hon. and learned Member" or "the Chancellor of the Exchequer".
      Mr. O'Brien: You are right, Sir Geoffrey. I put the name in quotes, but you are right to correct the hon. Member for Dover and me.
      Mr. Christopher Whitehouse's text book, "Revenue Law: Principles and Practices," says of executive share options:
      "The reason that many more of these schemes have been established than all employee schemes is precisely because they are not all employee schemes and benefits under them can be granted to selected employees and because the value of the benefits they can be given is much higher. Those company directors who granted share options saw great advantages to themselves in the schemes. They could be selective about who they gave the benefits to and so"—
      all too often—
      "they gave the benefits to themselves. For the directors of the newly privatised utilities, they became great milch cows, providing perks, pensions, pay rises"
      and all sorts of other wonderful benefits.
      The Financial Secretary asked us to go into a history of what he called "all our yesterdays". The fact that I understand that phrase may date us both, but I remind him that it was Labour that initiated proposals for increased employee shareholding. Labour's 1978 profit-sharing scheme provided favourable tax treatment only if all employees with at least five years' experience benefited on similar terms.
      220
      The 1980 "save as you earn" scheme introduced by the Conservatives continued the principle of benefits on similar terms, but in 1984 Lord Lawson introduced the approved discretionary share option scheme—executive share options. That removed restrictions and allowed the company—in practice, directors of the company—to choose who received the benefits. The 1984 scheme gave a one-way bet: an option to purchase if the share price rose—if it fell, no one would need to buy the shares.
      Executive share options were always aimed at a small group. On introducing them, Lord Lawson said that his aim was
      "to increase the incentives and motivation of existing executives and key personnel".—[Official Report, 13 March 1984; Vol. 56, c. 299.]
      Those options were not intended for all. They were a special incentive for the preferred. The taxpayer provided a double largesse to directors in the privatised gas, water and electricity companies. Not only was the taxpayer forced by the Government to sell off the shares at a knockdown price, but the options on shares had a built-in, guaranteed price increase which, coupled with the tax concession, meant that those who had a lot of shares made an awful lot of money.
      The schemes allowed massive profits that were unjustified by performance. In British Gas alone, 1,042,141 share options were awarded to its directors, including 268,000 to Cedric Brown, the chief executive. That was on top of his salary rise, following privatisation, of 75 per cent. As privatisation progressed, so the scandals surrounding share options grew.
      Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Why does the Labour party want all those eligible to receive share options to have them on similar terms? Why should not directors give different employees in different areas of the company, who might have contributed different amounts to the company's profitability, different levels of share options?
      9.30 pm
      Mr. O'Brien: The hon. Gentleman was not here for the earlier part of the debate, so he does not realise that we have already dealt with that point, which was raised by the Financial Secretary. Indeed, I intend to deal with it again later in my remarks. If the hon. Gentleman had watched our debate on television or attended the Chamber he would be a little better informed about what has been said.
      I was outlining the ways in which the various privatised utilities had benefited. In all, they issued more than £100 million in share options. Many of those options have yet to be exercised and the benefits realised. Coupled with that, we have seen directors earning massive amounts through Government policies on share options. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr. Tipping) said, 40,000 jobs were lost in the electricity industry, 9,000 in the water industry, 26,000 in British Gas and 90,000 in British Telecom.
      Mr. John Marshall: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that those massive job losses show that those industries were heavily overmanned when they were in the public sector, which is a further justification for their privatisation?
      Mr. O'Brien: It is interesting to hear the hon. Gentleman justify unemployment. Is that his policy?

      221
      Is that what he wants? Does he want to justify an increase in unemployment? That is the record of the Conservative Government.
      Mr. Marshall: The hon. Gentleman asked whether it was my policy to increase unemployment. Is he not aware that unemployment in Britain is lower than anywhere else in the European Union? Is he not aware that the level of employment in Britain is higher than in almost any other European country? That is job creation. The hon. Gentleman supports job destruction through the social chapter and a minimum wage.
      Mr. O'Brien: The hon. Gentleman tried to justify job destruction in the privatised utilities and then tried to suggest that in some way he was responsible for lowering unemployment. In fact, since the Conservative party took office, unemployment has doubled.
      Mrs. Helen Jackson: Have not the job losses in the privatised utilities occurred partly as a result of the huge practice of outsourcing and contracting out core operations such as sewerage and water pipe maintenance, which should be done by the employees who then—
      The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. We are debating share options, and we should get back to that subject.
      Mr. O'Brien: My hon. Friend the Member for Hillsborough is right, but I heed your words, Mr. Morris.
      Even the Prime Minister said:
      "I do not agree with the excessive and unjustified salary increases. I have made that perfectly clear. But for companies within the private sector that must be a matter for shareholders and not for the Government."—[Official Report, 22 November 1994; Vol. 250, c. 464.]
      The Government refused to intervene and deal with the abuses in the privatised utilities. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood said, they vacillated and abdicated their responsibility to end the abuse. In contrast, Labour has always believed that the Government must undertake the minimum amount of intervention necessary to correct market failures and inadequacies and to enable the economy to work fairly for all society. Labour wants competition and success in industry. We recognise that the market can sometimes fail, so minimal intervention by Government is right to create the circumstances for fairness. That is why we put forward the amendment.
      Eventually, the Government were forced to do something, due to the anger of the public and the campaigns of Labour Front Benchers. The Government appointed a committee of directors to look at salaries and share options for directors—again, an example of double standards. Here I should refer to the amendment, because the debate at that time is the reason why we tabled the amendment. The Government decided to deal with the abuses by appointing a committee of directors to consider their own salaries and conditions. When have the Government ever suggested that, if nurses want a pay rise, they should set up a committee of nurses to determine how much that rise should be? That was an abdication of leadership on the part of the Government.
      222
      The amendment takes further Labour's campaign to create a stakeholding economy, and clearly delineates the difference between the parties. While the Conservatives created perks for the privileged in 1984, Labour wants to give all employees a stake in their companies. The amendment helps to crystallise the distinction between the Conservatives and Labour. Workers already have a limited stake in their companies through their jobs and through their dependence on those jobs for an income for their families, but we want to give them a greater stake in the future of the business and allow them to identify even more with the success of the enterprise.
      Many firms already recognise the importance of employee stakeholding, which provides motivation and incentives for people at work. Labour believes that shareholding by employees is a key way forward as we try to create a British stakeholding economy, and it can also bring massive benefits to British industry. One of the great failures of the Tory Government is that, for all their rhetoric, they have not provided the shareholding democracy that they have advocated. The Government schemes to increase employee share ownership have all too often been open to the sort of abuse that has taken place in the privatised utilities.
      Mr. Jack: Does the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that 2 million people are involved in the profit-sharing and save-as-you-earn schemes? Does he further acknowledge that, since we came to power—as my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) said—the number of shareholders in this country has risen from 3 million to 11 million?
      Mr. O'Brien: Labour's policy of introducing a profit-sharing mechanism in 1978 led to the similar save-as-you-earn scheme, which enabled a number of employees to get involved in their companies. The Financial Secretary praises our scheme—it is a scheme that the Government copied from Labour—but he tries to justify restricting the availability of shares, although he claims to advocate that they be made available to all employees in the company. If he was in the House at time, there can be no doubt that he voted in 1980 to ensure that all employees should be involved, so why does he now want to deny them that involvement? Why does he say now that those employees should not participate in their own companies?
      We need a change of culture in British companies. There must be an end to the conflicts between management and workers and a realisation that all have a vested interest in the long-term success of the company. Employee shareholding can help to do that. Many employee shareholders will work for a company for many years, so they will have a vested interest in looking to the long-term success of the business. They will see the benefits of investing now to secure jobs and prosperity for the future, rather than seeking short-term high dividends because their money can flit from one share to another.
      Because of that long-term perspective, employee shareholders can help to put right the weaknesses in our financial institutions, particularly their short-sightedness and their under-investment in industry. Employee shareholding will be beneficial to the public, as it will help the economy and encourage a long-term perspective that will help investment in industry. Therefore, it is in

      223
      the public interest, the taxpayer's interest and the Government's interest to use the tax system to promote employee shareholding.
      Where the scheme can benefit all, so all should contribute through incentives in the tax system to encourage it. We want the amendment to be carried because it will benefit each and every employee, and benefit the nation also—something that can never be said of the Government's executive share option scheme. Whatever the Government hoped in 1984, the lax wording and the opportunities for abuse resulted in the scheme disproportionately benefiting an elite of directors. It is the failure of the 1984 scheme and the inadequacy of the Government's attempts to amend it to which the amendment is addressed.
      During the controversy last year, the Conservatives never fully understood the anger and outrage of the British people at the abuses of share options. The amendment and clause 105 are the results of that anger. At a time when taxpayers were being told that they had to shoulder the burden of the highest tax increase ever imposed on the British people, when Britain was in the midst of a recession, and when unemployment stood at appalling levels—more than double the level when the Conservatives took office—a privileged elite of directors, mainly in the privatised utilities, abused a legal power to grant themselves excessive pay rises and share options in a tax-efficient way, thanks to the Government. The Tories saw nothing wrong with that, so out of touch were they with the British people. They never understood the anger about executive share options, any more than they understood the anger over VAT on fuel.
      The British people objected to the simple unfairness of it all. Our people have an innate sense that things should be fair, and the executive perks in the privatised utilities breached that British sense of fairness. The Government are not in touch with that basic instinct of the British people because they do not share it. In this amendment, Labour has moved a policy which is fair, which will ensure that share options are open to all employees and which is based on all employees having a stake in a company rather than serving only the interests of the elite who control the company.
      Our amendment to clause 105 speaks for the many in Britain. We want everyone to have a stake in their company, their future and their country. That is the real distinction. While the Government speak for the few, Labour speaks for the many. That is why the amendment deserves support.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The Committee divided: Ayes 255, Noes 276.

      Division No. 33]

      [9.40 pm

      AYES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Barnes, Harry

      Adams, Mrs Irene

      Battle, John

      Ainger, Nick

      Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Beith, Rt Hon A J

      Allen, Graham

      Bell, Stuart

      Alton, David

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

      Bennett, Andrew F

      Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

      Benton, Joe

      Armstrong, Hilary

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

      Berry, Roger

      Ashton, Joe

      Betts, Clive

      Austin-Walker,John

      Boateng, Paul

      224

      Bradley, Keith

      Hall, Mike

      Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

      Hanson, David

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Harvey, Nick

      Burden, Richard

      Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

      Byers, Stephen

      Henderson, Doug

      Callaghan, Jim

      Heppell, John

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Hinchliffe, David

      Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

      Hodge, Margaret

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Home Robertson, John

      Campbell-Savours, D N

      Hood, Jimmy

      Canavan, Dennis

      Hoon, Geoffrey

      Cann, Jamie

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

      Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)

      Howarth, George (Knowsley North)

      Chidgey, David

      Howells, Dr Kim (Pontypridd)

      Chisholm, Malcolm

      Hoyle, Doug

      Clapham, Michael

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      Hume, John

      Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

      Hutton, John

      Clelland, David

      Illsley, Eric

      Clwyd, Mrs Ann

      Ingram, Adam

      Coffey, Ann

      Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

      Cohen, Harry

      Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

      Connarty, Michael

      Jamieson, David

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

      Cook, Robin (Livingston)

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

      Corbett, Robin

      Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Corston, Jean

      Keen, Alan

      Cousins, Jim

      Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

      Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)

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

      Cunningham, Roseanna

      Khabra, Piara S

      Dafis, Cynog

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Dalyell, Tam

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Darling, Alistair

      Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

      Davidson, Ian

      Liddell, Mrs Helen

      Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

      Litherland, Robert

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

      Livingstone, Ken

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

      Loyden, Eddie

      Denham, John

      Lynne, Ms Liz

      Dewar, Donald

      McAllion, John

      Dixon, Don

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Dobson, Frank

      McCartney, Ian

      Dowd, Jim

      McCrea, The Reverend William

      Eagle, Ms Angela

      McFall, John

      Eastham, Ken

      McKelvey, William

      Etherington, Bill

      McLeish, Henry

      Evans, John (St Helens N)

      Maclennan, Robert

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret

      McMaster, Gordon

      Fatchett, Derek

      McNamara, Kevin

      Faulds, Andrew

      MacShane, Denis

      Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

      McWilliam, John

      Flynn, Paul

      Madden, Max

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Maddock, Diana

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Mahon, Alice

      Foulkes, George

      Mendelson, Peter

      Fyfe, Maria

      Marek, Dr John

      Galbraith, Sam

      Marshall, David (Shettleston)

      Galloway, George

      Martin, Michael J (Springburn)

      Gapes, Mike

      Maxton, John

      Garrett, John

      Meacher, Michael

      George, Bruce

      Meale, Alan

      Gerrard, Neil

      Michael, Alun

      Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

      Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

      Godman, Dr Norman A

      Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

      Godsiff, Roger

      Milburn, Alan

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Miller, Andrew

      Gordon, Mildred

      Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

      Graham, Thomas

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

      Morgan, Rhodri

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Morley, Elliot

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Morris, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)

      Grocott, Bruce

      Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

      Gunnell, John

      Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

      Hain, Peter

      Mudie, George

      225

      Mullin, Chris

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Murphy, Paul

      Snape, Peter

      Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

      Soley, Clive

      O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)

      Spearing, Nigel

      O'Brien, William (Normanton)

      Spellar, John

      O'Hara, Edward

      Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

      Olner, Bill

      Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

      O'Neill, Martin

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

      Stevenson, George

      Parry, Robert

      Stott, Roger

      Pearson, Ian

      Strang, Dr. Gavin

      Pickthall, Coin

      Straw, Jack

      Pike, Peter L

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Pope, Greg

      Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)

      Timms, Stephen

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Tipping, Paddy

      Prescott, Rt Hon John

      Touhig, Don

      Primerolo, Dawn

      Turner, Dennis

      Purchase, Ken

      Tyler, Paul

      Quin, Ms Joyce

      Vaz, Keith

      Randall, Stuart

      Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

      Raynsford, Nick

      Wallace, James

      Reid, Dr John

      Walley, Joan

      Rendel, David

      Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

      Robertson, George (Hamilton)

      Wareing, Robert N

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Watson, Mike

      Rogers, Allan

      Welsh, Andrew

      Rooker, Jeff

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Rowlands, Ted

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

      Ruddock, Joan

      Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Wilson, Brian

      Sheerman, Barry

      Winnick, David

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Wise, Audrey

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Worthington, Tony

      Short, Clare

      Wright, Dr Tony

      Simpson, Alan

      Young, David (Bolton SE)

      Skinner, Dennis

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

      Mr. Eric Martlew and

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

      Mr. Jon Owen Jones.

      NOES

      Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

      Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Mason, Rupert (Torbay)

      Bruce, Ian (Dorset)

      Amess, David

      Burns, Simon

      Ancram, Michael

      Burt, Alistair

      Arbuthnot, James

      Butcher, John

      Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

      Butter, Peter

      Ashby, David

      Butterfill, John

      Atkins, Rt Hon Robert

      Carlisle, John (Luton North)

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)

      Carrington, Matthew

      Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

      Carttiss, Michael

      Baldry, Tony

      Cash, William

      Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

      Chapman, Sir Sydney

      Bates, Michael

      Churchill, Mr

      Batiste, Spencer

      Clappison, James

      Bellingham, Henry

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

      Bendall, Vivian

      Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Congdon, David

      Body, Sir Richard

      Conway, Derek

      Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

      Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

      Booth, Hartley

      Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

      Boswell, Tim

      Couchman, James

      Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

      Cran, James

      Bowden, Sir Andrew

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

      Bowis, John

      Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

      Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

      Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

      Brandreth, Gyles

      Davis, David (Boothferry)

      Brazier, Julian

      Day, Stephen

      Bright, Sir Graham

      Deva, Nirj Joseph

      226

      Devlin, Tim

      Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

      Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

      Key, Robert

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

      Kirkhope, Timothy

      Dover, Den

      Knapman, Roger

      Duncan, Alan

      Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

      Duncan-Smith, Iain

      Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)

      Dunn, Bob

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

      Durant, Sir Anthony

      Knox, Sir David

      Dykes, Hugh

      Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

      Eggar, Rt Hon Tim

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Elletson, Harold

      Lawrence, Sir Ivan

      Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Legg, Barry

      Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Leigh, Edward

      Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

      Lidington, David

      Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

      Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

      Evennett, David

      Lord, Michael

      Faber, David

      Luff, Peter

      Fabricant, Michael

      Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

      MacKay, Andrew

      Fishburn, Dudley

      Maclean, Rt Hon David

      Forman, Nigel

      McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

      Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)

      Madel, Sir David

      Forth, Eric

      Maitland, Lady Olga

      Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

      Malone, Gerald

      Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

      Mans, Keith

      Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

      Marlow, Tony

      Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

      Marshall, John (Hendon S)

      French, Douglas

      Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

      Gale, Roger

      Marlin, David (Portsmouth S)

      Gallie, Phil

      Mates, Michael

      Gardiner, Sir George

      Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

      Garnier, Edward

      Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

      Gill, Christopher

      Mellor, Rt Hon David

      Gillan, Cheryl

      Merchant, Piers

      Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

      Mills, Iain

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

      Gorst, Sir John

      Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

      Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)

      Moate, Sir Roger

      Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

      Molyneaux, Rt Hon Sir James

      Greenway, John (Ryedale)

      Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector

      Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

      Montgomery, Sir Fergus

      Grylls, Sir Michael

      Needham, Rt Hon Richard

      Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

      Neubert, Sir Michael

      Hague, Rt Hon William

      Newton, Rt Hon Tony

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald

      Nicholson, David (Taunton)

      Hamilton, Neil (Tetton)

      Norris, Steve

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

      Hannam, Sir John

      Oppenheim, Phillip

      Hargreaves, Andrew

      Ottaway, Richard

      Harris, David

      Page, Richard

      Hawkins, Nick

      Paice, James

      Hawksley, Warren

      Patten, Rt Hon John

      Hayes, Jerry

      Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Heald, Oliver

      Pawsey, James

      Heathcoat-Amory, David

      Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

      Hendry, Charles

      Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

      Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

      Porter, David (Waveney)

      Hicks, Robert

      Powell, William (Corby)

      Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)

      Renton, Rt Hon Tim

      Horam, John

      Richards, Rod

      Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter

      Riddick, Graham

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

      Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)

      Robathan, Andrew

      Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

      Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

      Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

      Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

      Hunter, Andrew

      Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

      Jack, Michael

      Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

      Jessel, Toby

      Sackville, Tom

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

      Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

      Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

      Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

      Shaw, David (Dover)

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Shepherd, Rt Hon Gillian

      227

      Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

      Tracey, Richard

      Shersby, Sir Michael

      Tredinnick, David

      Sims, Roger

      Trend, Michael

      Skeet, Sir Trevor

      Trotter, Neville

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Twinn, Dr Ian

      Soames, Nicholas

      Vaughan, Sir Gerard

      Spencer, Sir Derek

      Viggers, Peter

      Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

      Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

      Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)

      Walden, George

      Spink, Dr Robert

      Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

      Spring, Richard

      Waller, Gary

      Sproat, Iain

      Ward, John

      Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

      Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Waterson, Nigel

      Steen, Anthony

      Watts, John

      Stephen, Michael

      Wells, Bowen

      Stern, Michael

      Whitney, Ray

      Stewart, Allan

      Whittingdale, John

      Sumberg, David

      Widdecombe, Ann

      Sweeney, Walter

      Wiggin, Sir Jerry

      Sykes, John

      Wilkinson, John

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Willetts, David

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Wilshire, David

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'fld)

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Wood, Timothy

      Thomason, Roy

      Yeo, Tim

      Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

      Thornton, Sir Malcolm

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Thumham, Peter

      Mr. Gary Streeter and

      Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

      Mr. Patrick McLoughlin.

      Question accordingly negatived. nil
      Mr. Peter Snape: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. I understand that, during the last debate, my involvement with a west midlands bus company was mentioned. I further understand that the hon. Member for Stamford and Spalding (Mr. Davies) was even less kind to me about my involvement with the bus company than he was to his sheep a couple of years ago. Will you, Mr. Morris, tell Conservative Members that the tradition of this House is that, if one hon. Member wishes to make a personal attack on another, he or she must notify that hon. Member first? Will you also pass that advice on to the Financial Secretary, who indulged in the same attack? I have no intention of going through the explanations that I have already given the House, and I have nothing to feel guilty about.
      The Chairman of Ways and Means: I can confirm that any hon. Member who wishes to refer to another hon. Member should forewarn him that he wishes to do so.
      Mr. David Shaw: I beg to move amendment No. 3, in page 69, line 44, leave out '£20,000' and insert '£30,000'.
      The Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 4, in schedule 15, page 269, line 44, leave out '£20,000' and insert '£30,000'.
      Mr. Shaw: The purpose behind the amendment is to raise the limit on approved share option schemes from the £20,000 that was originally proposed to £30,000. The figure of £20,000 is too low to operate a wide-ranging share option scheme that brings in not just very low income earners, but some of the people who are just above very low income levels.
      228
      The House should bear in mind that the share options are held over a three-year period. We are not talking about something that can be allocated at a rate of £20,000 per annum, but a fixed sum for at least a three-year period. The £30,000 limit would include people who are above very low income levels, but fall well short of fat cats. I would describe some of the beneficiaries as young, hard-working, aspiring, low and middle-income cats rather than fat cats. Those who are working in early-stage and developing companies would also benefit. There has been a cross-party view in the House that high-technology companies should be encouraged.
      I shall give three brief examples of the pressure that I have received from a number of people outside the House to raise the limit from £20,000 to £30,000. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister has received many representations. In the retail trade, the figure of £30,000 would cover both store supervisors and junior managers. In high-tech companies such as an Internet service company, where many American companies are often bidding for staff, the figure would cover the highly skilled junior staff.
      Among the many letters that I have received on share options was one from a research scientist in a small biotechnology company in Kent. Such people would benefit from a raised limit. They are not big income earners, but they hold the United Kingdom's future in their hands. They will help to create and maintain the jobs of the future.
      I hope that my hon. Friend can accept this minor amendment.
      Mr. Jack: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) for the way in which he moved his amendment. He knows that our overall objective is to encourage companies to introduce schemes from which as many of their employees as possible can benefit and to encourage employees to participate in them.
      The new tax relief for company share option plans must be seen in that context. The representations that we have received in response to my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor's invitation made it clear that there was demand for a third sort of scheme aimed at providing a more flexible way of granting options to modestly paid employees. That is what the new scheme is intended to do and that is why we initially pitched the limit on the value of options that could be granted at £20,000.
      On the basis of what my hon. Friend said and the representations that we have received, I accept that it is sometimes difficult to set the right limit. We initially felt that the balance was about right but, like my hon. Friend, I received representations. The British Retail Consortium, the ESOPs Centre and the Society of Share Scheme Lawyers were among those who asked us to review the subject to see whether £20,000 was right. We did so and I have thought carefully about the representations.
      I recognise the force of the broad range of arguments that have been advanced. As those who have made representations to us suggested, the limit might have been a shade too tight to allow middle managers to receive a significant quantity of options. The limit was aimed at middle managers. There was no attempt to push it higher, into the stratosphere, as Opposition Members suggested earlier.
      My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor and I have concluded that it would be right to provide greater flexibility, which my hon. Friend the Member for Dover

      229
      adverted to, for the companies that want it, so that they might tailor the scheme to meet their needs and those of their employees. On that basis, I am prepared to recommend to the House that we accept my hon. Friend's—
      Mr. Vivian Bendall: As a signatory of the amendment, may I thank my hon. Friend for making the opportunities open to a greater part of middle management?
      Mr. Jack: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's endorsement of the line on which I was about to conclude by saying that I am prepared to recommend to the House that we accept the amendment.
      10 pm
      Mr. Darling: I wonder whether the Financial Secretary—as we are in Committee, he has an opportunity to do so—would tell us whether the Treasury has made an estimate of the cost of agreeing to amendment No. 3.
      Does not the support for the amendment emphasise the truth of what we said earlier—that not only do the Conservatives oppose making schemes available to the many but, given the opportunity, they are prepared, inch by inch, bit by bit, to open all the doors that they said that they would close? What they are about is benefiting—
      Mr. William Cash: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Darling: No, I will not. The hon. Gentleman has not been in the Chamber all night, and he need not expect to get in on the debate like that.
      The Conservative party says that it intends to shut off loopholes and close down abuses, but the minute that it is subjected to pressure, it is prepared to start opening up the scheme. What is worse, when we table an amendment that is designed to ensure that the many are able to participate in schemes, Conservative Members vote it down. Given any opportunity, the Conservatives will choose to benefit as small a group of people as possible and deny opportunities to the many.
      Mr. Jack: Sir Michael, let it be—[HON. MEMBERS: "Mr. Morris."] Mr. Morris, let it be known to every middle
      230
      manager in the country that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) would not accept a modest change to the upper limit of the scheme—a change advocated by a broad range of outside interests and companies that have made representations to us. We listened carefully to what they said, and I have announced that I recommend that the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Dover be accepted.
      The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central asked me two questions. First, he asked about the cost of the scheme. [Interruption.] Would the hon. Gentleman care to listen to the answer, as he asked the question? The answer, in this public expenditure survey, is zero. When the scheme comes in, we estimate that the costs will be about £10 million.
      The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central misleads the House when he says that we do not want the employee share option plan to be available to all employees. The difference between the hon. Gentleman and Conservative Members is that we believe that companies should have the choice to tailor the scheme to meet their needs. I remind the hon. Gentleman that, if some companies were confronted with the regime that he has advocated, they would not even contemplate having any schemes, which denies the object of his remarks.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Clause 105, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Schedule 15

      SHARE OPTION SCHEMES APPROVED BEFORE PASSING OF THIS ACT
      Amendment made: No. 4, in schedule 15, page 269, line 44, leave out '£20,000' and insert '£30,000'—[Mr. David Shaw.]
      Schedule 15, as amended, agreed to.
      To report progress and ask leave to sit again.—[Dr. Liam Fox.]
      Committee report progress; to sit again tomorrow.

  Asylum Seekers
  [Relevant documents: the First Report from the Social Security Committee, on benefits for Asylum Seekers (House of Commons Paper No. 81), and the Report of the Social Security Advisory Committee with the Statement by the Secretary of State for Social Security (Cm. 3062).]
  10.4 pm
  Mr. Chris Smith: I beg to move,
  That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Social Security (Persons From Abroad) Miscellaneous Amendments Regulations 1996 (S.I., 1996, No. 30), dated 11th January 1996, a copy of which was laid before this House on 11th January, be annulled.
  I fear that we have a ridiculously short amount of time in which to debate a measure that will affect the life and livelihood of thousands of people. I know that hon. Members on both sides of the House wish to contribute to the debate, so I shall be brief.
  I shall be urging my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote strongly against the regulations, primarily because they are simply inhumane. They will ensure that people who are in this country legitimately—many of whom have fled repression and torture—will receive no benefit whatsoever unless they submit their applications for asylum at the port of entry and prior to the first determination. The Government are seeking to introduce powers in the Asylum and Immigration Bill, which is also before the House, to remove child benefit as well. That will leave asylum seekers with no means of sustenance or support. Every time that we have asked how those people, who are legitimately in this country, will survive without any means of support, the Government have provided no answer. The Government are simply driving people—including children and the sick and disabled—into destitution.
  We welcome the changes that the Government have made to the transitional arrangements, but that fundamental point about the regulations has not altered. I believe that, in bringing forward the regulations, the Government are forgetting the duties and decencies expected of a Government in a civilised country.
  Government Members will say that most of those who seek asylum are bogus claimants; that is the case that the Government have made. That may be true of many claimants, but many more cases are not bogus and the genuine will suffer along with the rest. That is the problem with the Government's proposals. I suspect that the Secretary of State will refer tonight to the 90 per cent. of people, or more, who are refused refugee status.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: It is 96 per cent.
  Mr. Smith: The hon. Lady is wrong, because the figure varies from year to year.
  We should also remember that, every year, 25 per cent. of asylum applicants are granted refugee status or exceptional leave to remain because it is found that they have a genuine and legitimate reason to remain in the United Kingdom. For example, a Bosnian Muslim, who does not fear his Government but is nonetheless genuinely afraid to remain in his own country, would be likely to be granted exceptional leave to remain in this country. I
  232
  believe that his legitimate reason to remain in this country is every bit as strong as that of someone who is granted refugee status.
  I am sure that we will hear another great untruth from Conservative Members tonight.
  Mr. Ian Bruce: The hon. Gentleman has given the example of a Bosnian Muslim who is in genuine fear of his life. Surely that person will not turn up at the port of entry and say that he is on holiday or that he is visiting relatives and does not plan to stay for an extended period. As he is in fear of his life, he will state his problem at the port of entry and he will receive social security benefits because he has made that declaration.
  Mr. Smith: I shall leave aside the obvious point that such a person might have been a student in this country or been here on holiday before circumstances in his country changed and forced him to apply for asylum. I shall turn to the issue of port of entry applications in a moment, because it is an important point. I accept that the hon. Gentleman may genuinely believe that people should make their applications at the port of entry, but I believe that he is wrong to do so. I will specifically address his point shortly, but I shall first address the other great untruth that the Government will doubtless tell us tonight—that the measure will somehow save the taxpayer some £200 million.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) allowed to use the word "untruth"? I thought that it was unparliamentary.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I did not hear the word.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: He used it twice.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The word is not one that parliamentarians usually use. It is occasionally appropriate to a political party, but it is not usually acceptable in the Chamber.
  Mr. Smith: I make no imprecation against the honour of Conservative Members, but I do against the honour of their argument, and that is what I am talking about. The Government tell us that the measure will save the taxpayer £200 million. It will not.
  In 1994, 33,000 people lodged asylum applications, and among those were nearly 5,000 dependent children. If families are left with no livelihood, they will have to depend on emergency support from social services or on the local authority taking their children into care. It costs £45,000 a year to keep a child in local authority care. If fewer than 5,000 children are taken into care, that would wipe out entirely the supposed savings that the Government claim from the measure.
  Mr. Michael Stephen: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that, when the people he is talking about present themselves at the port of entry, they are questioned on their reasons for coming here? They have to satisfy the immigration authorities that they have means of support while they are in the country, either because

  233
  they have money themselves or have friends and relations here. Is he not being alarmist when he suggests that such people and their dependants will become destitute?
  Mr. Smith: The hon. Gentleman completely mistakes the whole process of paying income support to someone. People are not entitled to receive income support if they have other means of income and livelihood, and that is the point at issue.
  The Government have said that they are discussing with local authorities the level of the burden that the measure would place on them. But the Government have not told us whether they are going to pay the local authorities in full for the cost of taking children into care and making emergency social services payments. If the Government cover the local authorities' costs in full, they will not make any savings. If, however, they do not pay the local authorities in full, they will simply transfer expenditure from the Department of Social Security to the local authorities. That is, perhaps, why Westminster and Wandsworth, those great bastions of socialism, are still pursuing their application for judicial review of the Government's intentions.
  Mr. David Shaw: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the Social Security Select Committee took a lot of evidence on that issue of cost to local authorities? We heard many alarmist people who had all sorts of allegations about how little the measure would save and how children would be treated. But does the hon. Gentleman accept that no one suggested that local authorities were likely to take the children away from their parents and put the children into care at a cost of £45,000 a year each? Even the most alarmist local authorities—and they were going over the top—only suggested that they would keep the children with their parents and that any additional costs, at current prices, would be for housing the families.
  Mr. Smith: Clearly, the hon. Gentleman was not awake during the proceedings of the Social Security Select Committee. If he looks at page xvii of its report, he will read:
  "The Association of London Government indicated a range of costs from £20,000 to £40,000 for looking after a child".
  That association is a cross-party body, and it tackled the very point that the hon. Gentleman has raised. He speaks of alarmist organisations, but the list of bodies that gave a great deal of very good evidence to the Committee included: the Board of Deputies of British Jews, The British Medical Association, the chief adjudicator for immigration appeals, the Disability Alliance, the family service units, the Immigration Law Practitioners Association, and the Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture. I am just saddened that the hon. Gentleman seems not to recognise the validity of what they said.
  Mr. Robert G. Hughes rose—
  Mr. Smith: The hon. Gentleman chaired the Committee and wrote the report, so I will give way to him—but this is the last time.
  Mr. Hughes: If everything is so ghastly, and if the Select Committee has it all wrong, why did an equal number of Labour and Conservative Members vote in favour of the report?
  Mr. Smith: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the vote in the Committee when it was proposed that it be
  234
  recommended that the Government withdraw these regulations. The Labour Members voted in favour, the Conservative Members against.
  Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Where does the report say that?
  Mr. Smith: In the minutes.
  There are, however, other arguments against these regulations. First, they fundamentally undermine the concept of appeal. There is a long and noble tradition in this country that an appeal gives a person the right to a further hearing. The first decision is not endorsed, and hence not fully valid, until the appeal has run its course. Yet the Secretary of State tells us in these regulations that an appeal effectively means nothing. Any case after the first determination will be assumed to be bogus. That, I believe, throws every judicial principle on its head and is deeply damaging to our notion of justice.
  The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Peter Lilley): Can the hon. Gentleman explain why successive Labour Governments have applied exactly the principle which he holds to be against natural justice to all British claimants who, on being refused a benefit, appeal against that rejection and are not given the benefit during the period of appeal?
  Mr. Smith: The right hon. Gentleman has used that argument before: it is bogus. He is not comparing like with like. It is a fallacy to claim that an appeal against an asylum refusal and an appeal against a benefit decision are precisely the same.
  Secondly, there is an assumption—this answers the point made by the hon. Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce)—on the part of the Government that an application made at the port of entry is more likely to be valid than one made afterwards. Common sense should tell the Secretary of State that that is not true. People fleeing from injustice, repression and torture, often after the trauma of a long and difficult journey and fearful of authority in the countries from which they come, have as the last thing on their minds when they first arrive here the idea that they must fill out forms and make their applications for asylum. They will be fearful of figures in authority, and it is very likely that they will be in great difficulty in terms of knowing where to go or who to consult.
  I shall give Conservative Members, who seem to think that we are not talking about human beings but about statistics, an example. It was given to me by my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford), who wrote to a Minister at the Home Office about a particular case just a few days ago. My hon. Friend wrote:
  "The above is a Kurdish refugee, who applied for asylum on 24th October 1995. three days after his arrival at Heathrow. He arrived at the weekend, and he speaks no English. He contacted the Kurdish Centre at the beginning of the next week, and they made an application for asylum on his behalf.
  He has been imprisoned and tortured by the Iraqi regime. He is disabled, having suffered injuries as well as torture. He was arrested and tortured on two separate occasions, and fled because he was warned by his uncle that the Iraqi police were coming to arrest him again. He has had to leave his wife and children in Iraq. He is certain that if he is forced to go back he will be killed."

  235
  Under the Secretary of State's new proposals, if that applicant were to arrive after 5 February, he would not qualify for benefit payments. That is wrong. That is why we oppose the regulations.
  Mr. Lilley: The case that the hon. Gentleman just mentioned—if the circumstances are as he says—evokes natural sympathy throughout the House. If someone in those circumstances arrives at a British port and is asked the purpose of his visit, what answer would he give? Surely it would be, "I've come here to seek refuge from persecution." It would not be to invent a story that he was here to visit someone, to substantiate that to the immigration officer and then demonstrate that he had the means to sustain himself while here.
  Mr. Smith: But the Secretary of State completely misunderstands the sense of fear and desperation that is often felt by those who come here fleeing from repression. The last thing that they are likely to do, seeing a figure in authority, is immediately to reveal their entire life history. Very often they want to seek help and advice from others in their community. That is precisely what happened in this case. It is clearly a case where there is genuine need and where there is genuine fear of repression, but because of difficulties, which inevitably occur when someone arrives at a port of entry in this country, he made his application three days later. The Secretary of State should take that into account.
  If common sense and plain ordinary decency do not move the Secretary of State, perhaps the figures will, because he told us a week or two ago that the approval rate for asylum applications from people who applied at the port of entry was greater than that for people who applied subsequently. The figures show that that is not the case.
  Dame Jill Knight rose—
  Mr. Smith: I shall not give way, because I have given way many times and time is pressing on.
  For the first 10 months of 1995, 4.8 per cent. of in-country applicants were approved for asylum. The figure for port applicants approved for asylum was 3.5 per cent. The pattern is exactly the same for each of the previous three years. The percentage who applied after they arrived at the port of entry but were approved for asylum—accepted by the Government as being genuine refugees—was higher than that for people who applied at the port of entry.
  So when the Government tell us, as the regulations seek to do, that an application at the port of entry is somehow more genuine than one that is received after someone has arrived at the port of entry, they are wrong, and the figures show that they are wrong.
  The Government also need to understand that the Social Security Advisory Committee, the body that they have established to advise them formally on social security matters, gave an unprecedented report rejecting wholesale the Government's proposed regulations. The Committee makes one further and telling point. It says:
  "We fully understand the Secretary of State's view that it is unreasonable to expect the UK taxpayer to support people whose reasons for coming to this country are purely economic."
  236
  That point I do not think anyone would dispute. But the Committee goes on to say:
  "However, it is clear to us from the evidence we have received that fair and expeditious immigration and asylum procedures are the best means of providing comprehensive and long-term arrangements to deal with these matters."
  The Secretary of State is effectively making the social security system do the Home Office's job for it. If the Secretary of State really wants to reduce his expenditure, if he wants the taxpayer to spend less money supporting non-genuine claimants, he should not bring in regulations which harm the genuine claimants; he should speed up the assessment procedures. That is what we have been arguing for many months now. In fact, the Home Office is doing precisely the reverse at the moment. It is getting worse at it, rather than better.
  Instead, the Secretary of State, no doubt anxious for a cheer at Tory party conference, has brought forward these deeply damaging proposals that will harm the good and the bad alike, that ultimately will not save money for the public purse, that fly in the face of reason and justice and that ought to be rejected by the House tonight.
  10.25 pm
  The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Peter Lilley): The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) began by saying that this was a ridiculously short debate. I am not aware of any representations from the Opposition for a longer debate or one earlier in the day—for the obvious reason that we all know that they are anxious to prove their credentials with readers of The Guardian and show that they are against these changes, but they do not want people in the country to know that they are against them. That is why they have let the debate go through late at night.
  I, by contrast, am happy to have a debate at any time, and chose to make a public statement before the House rather than by written answer as would be normal. The Opposition are strong on hypocrisy today, and we are strong on the causes of hypocrisy, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said.
  As I said in my statement in the House, the regulations, together with the changes that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary is bringing in the Asylum and Immigration Bill, have three aims. The first is to ensure that the United Kingdom remains a safe haven for those genuinely fleeing persecution. The reason genuine refugees come to the United Kingdom is to share our freedoms, not to obtain our benefits. Their rights to asylum will not be altered in any way, and anyone arriving as a refugee and claiming asylum at the port of entry will continue to have access to benefits while the Home Office determines the claim.
  The second objective is to deal more speedily with genuine claimants so that they can get on with their lives. The Home Office has already increased the number of caseworkers sevenfold since 1988, and an extra £37 million is being transferred from my budget to the Home Office and the Lord Chancellor's Department to expand their asylum work further over three years.
  Mr. Keith Bradley: The situation has got worse.
  Mr. Lilley: Of course it has got worse, because the number of claimants has continued to rise inexorably.

  237
  That is why we have to act on the attractions of asylum through the benefit system as well as through the procedures in the Asylum and Immigration Bill.
  The only other way of acting on the number of claimants is through taking measures to adjust the benefit arrangements and discourage the growing number of unfounded benefit and asylum claims which clog up the system to the disadvantage of genuine claimants. That is our third objective. The benefit reform contained in the regulations is essential to achieve that end.
  Mr. Max Madden: There can be no doubt that the regulations will ensure that, in February rather than January, large number of asylum seekers will be left destitute and homeless. Leaving that aside, however, may I ask what justification there is, when benefit is being denied, for continuing to prohibit asylum seekers from seeking or obtaining employment for at least six months after they have submitted their asylum claims? If the main purpose of the regulations is to reduce public expenditure, surely it would be best to enable asylum seekers to seek employment immediately after the submission of the claims.
  Mr. Lilley: Under all Governments, the practice has been not to let asylum seekers work during the first six months. One of the reasons why people come to this country pretending to be asylum seekers when they are, in fact, economic migrants is that they want to work here. Most countries do not allow asylum seekers to work at all; we give them that right after six months.
  The rising tide of asylum seekers represents a major problem that no responsible Government could possibly ignore. Last year, the total number of people claiming asylum in the United Kingdom, including dependants, exceeded 57,000. In the previous year, the figure was 42,000. That, in turn, was a tenfold increase over the past 10 years. Yet, in the same period, the increase in the number of asylum seekers on the continent was less than threefold. Britain's share of all the asylum seekers coming to Europe has trebled over the last decade. Moreover, since 1994 the number of claims has fallen by a third on the continent, whereas in 1994 it rose by 45 per cent., and there was a further 35 per cent. increase last year.
  Amnesty International agrees with us, saying:
  "The truth of the matter is that, since 1992, immigration controls and asylum procedures—particularly those applied at the border—have been tightened far more in some European countries than in the UK … This … no doubt works to make the UK a more attractive destination to would-be asylum-seekers than some other European countries."
  France and Belgium, for example, offer no benefits to any asylum seeker after 12 months. Italy offers no benefits to any asylum seeker at all, and as a result only 1,800 people have bothered to claim asylum there. Germany and Holland accommodate asylum seekers in camps, giving benefits mainly in kind rather than cash.
  The simple fact is that the growth in the number of claims reflects a huge increase in economic migration, rather than an increase in the number of people fleeing from genuine persecution. The overwhelming majority of claims for asylum turn out, on examination, to be unfounded. Fewer than 7 per cent. of claimants are eventually given refugee status, including those who are
  238
  successful on appeal. We are, in effect, spending £200 million a year—that sum is rising rapidly—over 90 per cent. of which goes to people who are not political refugees at all.
  Ms Diane Abbott: Is it not misleading to talk of 7 per cent., or 4 per cent., of people eventually being given refugee status? Another 14 or 15 per cent. are given exceptional leave to remain, and those of us who have dealt with refugee cases know that it is almost as hard to obtain exceptional leave to remain as it is to be recognised as a refugee.
  Mr. Lilley: I shall deal with the question of exceptional leave to remain in a moment. [Interruption.] I shall give my speech in my own way, and without further interruptions.
  None the less, under the regulations, those who arrive in this country claiming to be refugees will remain entitled to benefit while the Home Office assesses their claim.
  Mr. Nick Raynsford: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Lilley: I shall make a little progress, if I may, if only to please the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw).
  We must recognise, however, that 70 per cent. of claims in this country are made by people who entered the country claiming to be students, tourists, visitors or business people. They had to convince the immigration officers that that was so, and that they had the means to support themselves when in this country. They accepted that they could not be a burden on public funds. Subsequently, they change their story and claim asylum. Under the present system, they are then entitled to receive benefits. In future, those who change their story will not be entitled to benefits. We will hold them to their original assurances, unless there has been an upheaval in the country from which they have come since they left it.
  Mr. James Couchman: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, although people may use all sorts of devious ways to get out of countries where they fear persecution, there is no need for them to lie at the port of entry when they come here? If they throw themselves at the mercy of people at the port of entry and tell the truth, they are much more likely to be believed to be genuine asylum seekers.
  Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend makes a good point. The reason that genuine claimants come to this country and flee a country in which they are being persecuted is that they know that we are a haven of freedom. They come here because they trust our authorities, not because they distrust us. If they did distrust them, they would go somewhere else.
  Mr. Raynsford: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Lilley: If the hon. Gentleman will permit, I will make some further progress.
  We shall change the rules affecting asylum seekers to put them on the same basis as British citizens who are not entitled to benefits while appealing against rejection of a

  239
  benefits claim. As I said in my intervention on the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury, successive Governments, including Labour Governments, have treated benefit claimants in this country in that way, and he did not come up with any specific reasons for distinguishing between British claimants appealing against rejection of benefit, and asylum claimants appealing against rejection of their asylum claim and against not being allowed to receive benefits during that period.
  Ms Glenda Jackson: May I give the Secretary of State two specific areas where a marked difference exists between an asylum seeker being denied benefits and a British national being denied them? I do not want to get into the ethical difference between seeking asylum and claiming benefits, but surely the most salient differences are, first, that an asylum seeker probably does not speak English and, secondly, that he or she will have no family, friends or support to assist while waiting for the application to be processed.
  Mr. Lilley: That is not the case. The vast majority have contacts over here and, of course, by the time the question of appeal comes up, they have been found not to be genuine refugees. If they choose to pursue that claim, fair enough, but the present system encourages virtually everyone to appeal. If we had such a system internally, virtually everyone would appeal. As it is, only a small minority of British claimants whose application for a benefit is rejected, appeal. A large majority of their appeals are upheld by the tribunals because only those with a good case bother to appeal. The vast majority of asylum claimants appeal and 96 per cent. of those appeals are found to be unfounded. It cannot be right to continue virtually to pay people to make appeals, the large majority of which are bogus.
  Mr. Raynsford: The Secretary of State will recall that, in his speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) highlighted a case, in which I have been involved, of a refugee who suffered torture and horrendous experiences in Iraq. On arrival in the United Kingdom, speaking no English, confused and unaware of the procedures, he did not make an immediate claim for asylum, but he did so three days later when advised by the friends with whom he had come to stay to seek safety from persecution. If the right hon. Gentleman has any humanity, how can he claim that that person is a bogus refugee?
  Mr. Lilley: The hon. Gentleman obviously did not hear my earlier intervention. He has failed to answer the question why, if all the circumstances he cited are correct, the person concerned—we all sympathise with that person—answered dishonestly the questions put to him by the immigration official.
  Mr. Raynsford: Because he does not speak English.
  Mr. Lilley: But the Home Office makes available translation and interpretation services in more than 100 languages, including Arabic. There is no question but that the person concerned could have made himself understood. He would have had to do so to convince the immigration officer that he was here as a student, if he said that he was a student; as a visitor, if he said that he was a visitor; as a business man, if he said that he
  240
  was a business man. He would have had to be able to convince the immigration officer that he had the means to support himself while in this country. Did the hon. Gentleman even ask the person those questions?
  Mr. Raynsford: Of course I asked those questions when the man came to my surgery with an interpreter. He explained, through an interpreter because he spoke no English, how he arrived in a foreign country in a state of terror, fleeing from persecution, and said that he had come to stay with his relatives and friends. He made an application for asylum later. It is a genuine case, and he should not be penalised by the regulations.
  Mr. Lilley: It has emerged that the man had friends and relatives to support him, and that he convinced the immigration officer that that was so. That is satisfactory for him—[Interruption.] I am trying to deal with the general point about claims made in-country versus those made at the port.
  It is nonsense to suggest that people fail to claim at the port because they do not know the rules. No one needs to know the rules; nor do people need to know English. There are interpretation facilities at the port. All they have to do is tell the truth when asked by the immigration officials at the port to give their reasons for coming to this country. If they say that they are fleeing persecution and they want asylum, they will subsequently be allowed to claim benefit while pursuing that claim.
  If, however, they say that they are here to study, to visit relatives, as tourists or on business, they will have to convince the immigration authorities of that. They will be asked to show that they will be able to support themselves, and they will have to convince the immigration officials of that. They will probably be asked where they will stay, and they will have to provide information about that. They will probably be asked to show that they have a return ticket or the means to buy one.
  People do not accidentally give the wrong answers to those questions. Of course, most of them answer honestly, and at the time they entered the country they did intend to come for those reasons, perhaps with the thought also of seeking asylum. On the other hand, that might not have been in their minds, but subsequently it was put into their minds. Quite a substantial number do not make the asylum claim until the end of their period of entitlement to stay or until they have overstayed.
  Mr. Chris Smith: If that is the case, can the right hon. Gentleman tell us why, year after year after year, a higher proportion of applicants for asylum who apply after they came into the country are awarded refugee status than applicants who applied at the port of entry?
  Mr. Lilley: That is not invariably the case. The numbers are small—
  Mr. Jack Straw: In every year?
  Mr. Lilley: No, not in every year.
  Mr. Smith rose—
  Mr. Lilley: I am answering the previous point.

  241
  The numbers accepted as refugees are small indeed, whether the claim is made afterwards or at the port. We are talking about the difference between very small percentages. If my recollection is correct, in 1994—the last full year for which we have figures—the proportion claiming in-country who were eventually given refugee status was smaller than that at the port.
  Mr. Smith: I have to say that the Secretary of State is incorrect for the years 1992, 1993, 1994 and 1995. He says that we are talking about very small numbers of people. There were 670 last year, 530 the year before that, 1,260 the year before that and 705 the year before that. The Secretary of State's figures are incorrect.
  Mr. Lilley: The hon. Gentleman is confusing percentages and absolute numbers. The fact is that the majority of people at present do claim in-country, and the majority of people who are eventually accepted claim in-country.
  Mr. Smith: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Lilley: I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman, who cannot tell the difference between percentages and numbers.
  Mr. Smith rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) can see when the Secretary of State is giving way and when he is not.
  Mr. Lilley: The—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Did I hear the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Grant) suggest that an hon. Member was bogus? If so, I hope very much that he will withdraw that comment.
  Mr. Bernie Grant: I said that the Secretary of State's arguments were bogus.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am most grateful.
  Mr. Lilley: The simple fact is that, since we announced the changes, the proportion of people choosing to claim at port rather than in-country has suddenly risen. One of the reasons people previously claimed in-country is that such a claim makes it more difficult subsequently to remove a person, as he will have to be subject to deportation procedures. Those claiming at port are easier to remove, as they are subject only to removal procedures. There was a positive advantage for people to claim in-country, apart from any desire to get benefit.
  The change that we have made—even if people have to some extent circumvented it for benefits—will bring about greater honesty and clarity at ports, and will mean that people will not claim an artificial advantage by entering the country before they subsequently make their claim.
  Ms Glenda Jackson: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Ms Abbott: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Lilley: I have given way to a great number of hon. Members and I shall make some progress, if I may.
  A number of critics of the changes that we have made have tried to suggest that the bulk of asylum seekers whose claims are rejected are not really bogus. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) and his party's spokesman in another place, Lord Russell, have said that we are dealing not with bogus claims but with bogus refusals. They have claimed that the Home Office has in some way tightened up the definition of asylum seekers. That is simply and palpably untrue.
  The definition used to define a refugee is laid down in international law by the Geneva convention and has not changed. Decisions made by Home Office officials are justiciable and can be taken to a further stage of appeal, and that is to a legal body and not a Home Office body. A case can be taken to a further judicial review if it is felt that the law is not being applied correctly. In 96 per cent. of cases where there is an appeal to a higher authority, the Home Office decision is upheld. There is no evidence that the Home Office is not interpreting the rules properly or correctly.
  Mr. David Alton: The Secretary of State will accept that Canada is not entirely parallel to the UK for these purposes, but will he reflect that only 4 per cent. of cases in this country are judged to be convention refugees, whereas in Canada 70 per cent. of those who apply are accepted for convention purposes? Does that—and the even more significant comparisons that can be made with other EC countries—not demonstrate that we receive far fewer people as convention refugees because of the way in which we choose to interpret the rules?
  Mr. Lilley: The hon. Gentleman has chosen an exceptional country for an example, and he will know that the position in most other European countries is rather similar to that in this country—the rates of refusal and rejection are fairly similar.
  The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury suggested that the bulk of asylum seekers should be considered as refugees. Another body, Asylum Aid, wrote to the Evening Standard to suggest that most refugees have
  "fled imprisonment or the threat of death at a moment's notice, often with only the clothes they stand up in."
  That is scarcely ever the case. To get to this country, it is usually necessary for people to get a visa in the first place. Hon. Members will know that that is not a speedy or an easy process. It often involves more than one visit to the British entry clearance officer in the country of origin and obtaining information from here before they arrive in this country. To suggest that people are arriving suddenly and unexpectedly, because of a knock on their door in the night, and that they have only the clothes they stand up in is untrue.
  In this country, as in most other countries, we face a major problem because of the rising flow of economic migrants using the asylum procedures, which were set up for quite different purposes. We have to cope with that problem—any Government would have to try to cope with it—and there are only two ways to do so.
  One way is to speed up the procedures, by using the improvements in the Asylum and Immigration Bill, which is going through the House. The other is to reduce the

  243
  attraction of benefits. The Opposition have opposed both measures, as they have opposed every attempt by the House to update immigration and asylum procedures. Their approach is fundamentally irresponsible. It does not even meet the needs of genuine asylum seekers, who are the principal sufferers from a system that puts them in the long queue that is created by tens of thousands of bogus asylum seekers.
  We have to take action; we have taken action. The measures that we have taken are sensible, well judged and, in the case of appeals, they parallel the treatment that we already give to British citizens. The changes are in the ultimate interests of genuine refugees and of good race relations in this country, and I commend them to the House.
  10.51 pm
  Ms Liz Lynne: I am pleased that we have had a chance to debate these regulations. That was due to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton). Without him they would already have been put into practice.
  I am glad that the proposed changes were examined in detail by the Social Security Advisory Committee, which took evidence from 225 individuals and organisations, from Shelter to the British Medical Association, Disability Alliance, Maternity Alliance, church groups and local councils—of all political persuasions, I hasten to add.
  The SSAC concluded that the Government's proposals should not proceed, and stated:
  "We do not believe that it is acceptable that a solution should be sought by putting at risk of destitution"—
  "destitution" is the word the committee used—
  "many people who are genuinely seeking refuge in this country, amongst whom may be numbered some of the most vulnerable and defenceless in our society".
  Mr. Stephen: Does the hon. Lady recall that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said that, to get into the country in the first place, the persons to whom she refers would have to satisfy the immigration officer that they have the means to support themselves while they are here? No question of destitution can arise.
  Ms Lynne: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman can have heard me. I was quoting the report of the Social Security Advisory Committee, which is hardly an anti-Government body—the chairman and members were appointed by the Secretary of State. Does the hon. Gentleman not realise that? But still the Government will not listen—even though that committee's main function is to advise on social security regulations.
  The people who support the regulations falsely claim that anyone who applies in-country is bogus. That claim is based on ignorance of the difficulties and the real trauma that asylum seekers have gone through before they get to this country. Many asylum seekers are ignorant of immigration law and the benefit rules. It is hardly surprising that they turn to friends, relatives and organisations for advice before going to Government officials. Often they were frightened of such officials in their own countries.
  Most asylum seekers apply within a few days. Some come in on false passports because they cannot get genuine papers in their countries. A study by the Refugee
  244
  Council showed that 42 per cent. of those who apply for asylum in this country applied on the same day; 8 per cent. within one day; and 31 per cent. within one week. Those are not people who have come to Britain on visitors' visas, stayed for six months, decided that they like the country and applied for political asylum; they are genuine refugees. I do not doubt that there are some people who do that sort of thing. They have to be dealt with quickly and, if they are bogus, they must be dealt with accordingly and sent back to their countries.
  We are talking about genuine asylum seekers. The Home Office granted large numbers of genuine asylum seekers permission to come into the country. Between 1992 and 1994, there were 2,495 cases of refugees who applied for asylum in-country, compared with 1,040 who applied at the port of entry. It is more common for genuine asylum seekers to apply in-country.
  If the regulations were in place, those 2,495 people could not have had income support, housing benefit or council tax benefit. They would have been destitute. The regulations will, in time, lead to thousands of asylum seekers sleeping rough without any means of support. Think of the human costs—they will hit families with children, disabled people, torture victims and elderly people.
  Mr. Alan Howarth: Does the hon. Lady recall that Ministers spent a lot of time last year explaining how much they deplore discrimination against disabled people? Is she surprised that they now plan to discriminate in the benefit system against disabled people who happen to be asylum seekers? Does she agree that the Government's xenophobia will not be tolerated by the British people, who will not accept the destitution and suffering that this policy will cause?
  Ms Lynne: I could not agree more. Disabled people will suffer along with the elderly and children. Many of those children will be taken into care because they have to be under the Children Act 1989. What will be the cost? How much more money will the Government give local councils to help them with the bill for taking those children into care? If they are not taken into care, what will happen to them? They will be on the streets. [Interruption.] There are beggars on the streets now, but once the regulations come into force, there will be more of them, and families, disabled people and children will be on the streets.
  Ms Glenda Jackson: Clearly, Conservative Members are not prepared to listen to the hon. Lady's argument, which is based on fact. Perhaps they will take the word of Oxfam, which is preparing to set aside 47,000 sq ft of its ubiquitous black plastic and emergency food rations to assist refugee organisations and the Churches to provide the most meagre shelter for those people, who, under the regulations, will become absolutely destitute and be put on to our streets. Is it likely that Oxfam, an organisation that is overstretched dealing with major human disasters around the world, would be playing games if there were not a real need for such assistance?
  Ms Lynne: It is not likely at all, and nor is it likely in respect of all the other organisations that are playing their part, or the Churches that have warned that there will be destitute families. They are not anti-Government organisations or people out to get the Government. They

  245
  are genuinely concerned about children and families who will become destitute. Ultimately, it will lead to many unjust refusals and a breach of the convention on refugees.
  Last year, 95 men and women had their initial refusal overturned. Under these regulations, they will have no right to benefit while waiting to appeal. It takes on average 18.4 months for a case to be fully resolved; the initial decision takes on average 8.7 months. What are those people supposed to do? How are they supposed to live? What are the 3,333 people who have been waiting for five years and the 23,000 who have been waiting since 1993 supposed to do? The Government should be speeding up the appeals procedure if they want to cut the social security bill. Had those people not been entitled to benefit, they, too, would have been out on the streets. Do the Government expect local authorities to pick up the tab?
  Perhaps the Secretary of State will tell us when replying to the debate where the appeal papers will be delivered. Will they turn up in a box somewhere underneath the arches? How will the people concerned be found? It will be an administrative nightmare. Even if somebody is granted leave to enter this country and the Home Office appeals against it, he or she will still receive no benefit until the appeal is heard.
  We need a fair refugee procedure, which must include appeal and a means to support those people during the appeal procedure. I hope that the Secretary of State will change his mind before it is too late, in the name of humanity.
  11.1 pm
  Mr. Robert G. Hughes: The speech by the hon. Member for Rochdale (Ms Lynne) had all the authenticity and voracity that one would expect from a Focus newsletter, which is not saying much.
  The Social Security Select Committee's report on benefits says:
  "The Committee shares the widespread view that the growth in the number of unfounded asylum claims, and their cost to the taxpayer, is a serious problem that the Government is right to tackle."
  There must be a starting point. Some of the Opposition's comments so far would lead us to believe that they did not understand that. Outside this Chamber and its hothouse atmosphere, however, many people of all parties understand it. The general public also understand it, which is why they will welcome the regulations that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has tabled.
  Mrs. Maria Fyfe: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Hughes: I shall give way just a couple of times.
  Mrs. Fyfe: I count myself fortunate.
  Is not the hon. Gentleman embarrassed that the Churches must now revert to the role that they fulfilled before the introduction of the welfare state—ensuring that people do not go hungry and have some kind of shelter?
  Mr. Hughes: If that were true, I would. We heard all the evidence presented by the hon. Member for Rochdale. We
  246
  heard the destitution arguments, but they did not stand up to proper examination. Had my right hon. Friend not made the changes that he announced in his statement of 11 January, the 13,000 people who had been on benefit and whose benefit would have been cut off would have been in a difficult position. I recognise that and assume that it is why my right hon. Friend took that correct step.
  But let us be clear: none of those people will be in a position that is different from what they expected, or the position that they declared themselves to be in, because they have declared that they will not be a burden on the state and that they recognise that they will not be eligible for social security benefits. That will continue to be the position.
  I have no doubt that, when the regulations are introduced, we shall see some of the typical shroud waving that we have come to expect. We shall see some hard cases paraded, but the question that people have to ask is whether they needed to be hard cases at all, or whether they are being paraded as a gimmick to try to discredit what the Government are doing.
  Ms Abbott: Clearly, the hon. Gentleman is unmoved by what he describes as the destitution argument. Is he interested at all in our obligations under international law? We are obliged to give such people rights of appeal. What sort of right of appeal is it if, for the 18 months or perhaps two years that people have to wait for their appeal, they have no means of support? The Opposition believe that the proposals may be within the letter of our international obligations, but they are clearly outside the spirit of our obligations under international law.
  Mr. Hughes: I believe that to be complete nonsense. There is no justification for the very wide-ranging point that the hon. Lady has made. As my right hon. Friend stated in his opening speech, people need not be in that position.
  Mr. Alan Howarth: The fourth paragraph of the summary of conclusions of the Select Committee's report provides an endorsement of the Government's view that they are acting in accordance with their obligations under international law. But will the hon. Gentleman make it absolutely clear to the House that it was the Tory majority on the Select Committee that ensured that its report goes so far to endorse the Government's policy?
  The proceedings of the Select Committee record a series of far-reaching amendments, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) but defeated in Divisions. As a member of the Select Committee, I concur completely with my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North and I greatly regret that the Select Committee's report fails to acknowledge the Government's betrayal of our liberal and humane tradition. The Government's policy will create fear and destitution; it will break up families and be racially divisive, and I abhor it.
  Mr. Hughes: I say two things in response to that intervention. I do not wish to ruin the career of the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn), but I have the highest regard for his integrity. He tabled the amendments entirely in line with the policies that he has always espoused. It is perfectly right for him to do that.

  247
  The views of the newly arrived Labour Member would carry more credibility if he had bothered to stay until the end of the proceedings and vote against publication of the report.
  Mr. Alan Howarth: The hon. Gentleman is well aware that I made it entirely clear during the proceedings that I utterly deplored the tenor and thrust of the report. He well knows that I had to be in the Chamber at the end of the proceedings and could not be available to record my vote.
  Mr. Hughes: I think that the hon. Gentleman has an argument with the Hansard reporters, because the point of order that he told us that he was leaving the Committee to make does not appear in the copy of Hansard for that day—
  Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. It would be appropriate if hon. Members addressed the subject matter in hand.
  Mr. Hughes: I turn to the point that has been raised about presenting oneself honestly at the port of entry. In the sixth paragraph of the Select Committee report we recommend that there
  "should be access to appropriate and independent legal advice for all asylum applicants."
  That is important. There is a project looking into work at ports of entry and I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will consider the work carried out there to find out whether anything can be done to ensure that the advice is correct, appropriate and available.
  One of the differences between the Select Committee and the Social Security Advisory Committee is that Members of Parliament have constituencies and see the cases that come before them. That is bound to make a difference to the way in which they view the subject. Of course, we see the cases where someone has come to this under one guise, stayed on under another guise and then sought asylum—not necessarily with a good reason for doing so, but merely to prolong his or her stay in this country. As a bonus, they are doing so at the expense of the taxpayer. It is time that that stopped, and that is one of the reasons why I welcome the new regulations.
  Sir Ivan Lawrence rose—
  Mr. Stephen rose—
  Mr. Hughes: I give way to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence).
  Sir Ivan Lawrence: My hon. Friend would notice another difference between the conclusions of the Social Security Select Committee and the conclusions of the Social Security Advisory Committee. The SSAC, having said that the position presents a
  "serious and very difficult problem for the Government",
  recognises that
  "under the current system benefits may be paid, sometimes for years, to people without foundation"
  and that
  "it is unreasonable to expect the UK taxpayer to support people whose reasons for coming to this country are purely economic",
  248
  provides no solution to the problem that confronts the Government.
  Mr. Hughes: That indeed is one of the differences.
  In previous debates, we were asked to believe that people who fled from the dreadful tyranny of the old regime in South Africa or of Nazi Germany, having found it necessary to use forged passports and documents and to lie to get into this country, would never have been admitted into this country if the regulations before us had been implemented. That is nonsense, and it is insulting to the people who are spoken of.
  It is talking nonsense to say that someone fleeing from Nazi Germany, or one of the leaders of the African National Congress, having gone to all that trouble, having obtained the papers and come to this country, would lie on arrival at the port of entry. Those people would declare themselves honestly, and everyone knows it in their heart.
  Ms Glenda Jackson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Hughes: I have given way enough, and other hon. Members want to take part.
  Ms Jackson: It is very short.
  Mr. Hughes: I have heard that from the hon. Lady before, and it has not been true. The fact is—[Interruption.]
  Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The House knows the rules full well. If the hon. Member who has the Floor does not give way, other hon. Members must resume their seats.
  Mr. Hughes: The message will travel back to people who intend to come to this country correctly and appropriately seeking asylum, that to seek asylum in the United Kingdom, it is now necessary to do so at the port of entry. Those people will understand that, and that is what they will do.
  The bloodcurdling speech by the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) was designed to ride two horses. The Labour party knows that it cannot control its left wing unless it makes bloodcurdling speeches against this measure, but it knows that the bulk of its support, and most people in the country, support the measures that my right hon. Friend proposes.
  Once again, it is middle-class left wingers, espousing one policy but believing in another. It is the type of "Harmanising" that we have come to expect from the Labour party.
  11.12 pm
  Mr. Frank Field: I shall be brief, as many hon. Members have constituency interests in this subject.
  The Secretary of State is no doubt seething with anger tonight. He has every reason to feel that way. He knows that he has been stitched up by his Cabinet colleagues, because the Government have slowly woken up to a fact that the country has known for some time—the Home Office is in a shambles. The Home Office is unable to

  249
  protect our borders—one of its most important duties. Because of its inability to carry out that function, the Secretary of State has been cornered and forced to introduce those regulations and use the social security system as a means of controlling entry to the country because the Home Office has failed.
  Mr. Lilley: I thank the hon. Gentleman, and the Social Security Select Committee that he chairs, for joining me in being stitched up and approving of the measures that I have just introduced.
  Mr. Field: It is a pity, given that the Secretary of State thinks that the Committee gave a great deal of support to him, that he did not bother to comment on, agree with and support one of its recommendations—that those authorities at the point of entry, such as Dover and others in London, should not be obliged to foot the cost of the changes that central Government are introducing tonight. The Select Committee report recommended that local authorities be reimbursed fully for the additional costs associated with the changes that we are debating. I shall willingly give way to the Secretary of State to allow him to confirm that that is Government policy.
  Mr. Lilley: I announced in my statement that we are discussing with local authorities ways in which we can make a substantial contribution to the unavoidable costs that they will incur as a result of the changes. There will be a meeting with local authorities later this week to discuss the matter. That seems a sensible course of action. The House has made representations that the Government should not cover 100 per cent. of the cost, as there should be some incentive for local authorities to economise in the measures that they introduce. Even Westminster has recognised that it should not be 100 per cent. cost recovery.
  Mr. Field: As to my first point, the House will note that the Secretary of State has peeled himself away from the recommendations in the Select Committee report.
  I repeat that we have crossed a threshold tonight. Even if we disagree with the policy, the Secretary of State has a reputation for running his Department. This is the first time that he has had to come to the Dispatch Box and introduce changes which prove that he has been overwhelmed by his colleagues. The DSS must now bring forward policies because the Home Office cannot manage it.
  During the debate, the Secretary of State and his hon Friends have said repeatedly that, if we could control the point of entry more effectively, we would not need the regulations. He knows that the Government cannot deliver on that score: hence we have the regulations.
  I refer also to the question of fraud. The Secretary of State did not comment on that. My hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Grant) said that many of the figures on which the Secretary of State based his argument tonight are bogus. He will know that the Select Committee is conducting a major inquiry into benefit fraud, including housing benefit fraud and the way that landlords rip off taxpayers. Thankfully, we have almost reached the point where we have only to announce that we are undertaking a fraud inquiry for the Secretary of State to introduce tightening-up measures.
  250
  During our inquiry into housing benefit fraud, some of the most effective anti-fraud officers gave evidence before the Select Committee. They pointed out that the Government are so slipshod in administering the national insurance system that there are about 10 million or 20 million more numbers than people in this country. They said that many of those national insurance numbers are being used by people who profess to be asylum seekers in order to register false claims for benefit.
  In our report, we suggest that the Secretary of State should respond to that serious abuse by setting up a task force so that we can determine quickly and with some certainty whether the figures showing an increase in the number of asylum seekers—from which the Secretary of State made such capital tonight—are real or bogus. We must determine whether the figures are based on the gangs that are operating in this country and milking the social security system of vast sums of money. Although the Secretary of State claims that the report lent him much support, it is significant that he was not anxious to comment upon that recommendation.
  In conclusion, we have crossed a threshold tonight. For the first time that I can remember in his present stewardship, the Secretary of State has sold out his Department. He has put the requirements of the Home Office before his responsibility for running a social security system which meets need. Although he talks bravely and he sometimes acts effectively against fraud, he has done very little to follow up our recommendation. He should look carefully at the way in which gangs of people are claiming to be asylum seekers and boosting the figures, when they are simply ripping off the social security budget and the taxpayers.
  11.19 pm
  Mr. Peter Brooke: It is always a pleasure and a privilege to follow the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field). I always seek to be brief, and on this occasion I shall, perforce, need to be. I do not think that a 90-minute debate does justice to this subject, but that must be laid at the door of the usual channels.
  First, I must express my appreciation to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the personal trouble he went to in explaining the Government's policy to me. Secondly, in the light of the concerns that caused the delay in the laying of the regulations, I believe that the Departments involved could have paid a greater compliment to this House if they had agreed the transitional compensation arrangements before this debate, rather than opening negotiations on them three days after the debate has taken place, which is asking quite a lot of the faith of hon. Members whose constituencies are directly affected.
  Thirdly, events have moved on since the Social Security Advisory Committee report, but to use language at its most neutral, it was a deeply sceptical document. The comparative lack of preparedness for the difficult questions in December leaves me continuing to be sceptical about how things will turn out on the night. In particular, I remind the House of what happened in 1988, when withdrawal of benefits from 16 to 17-year-olds occurred. That we eventually pulled back the number of rough sleepers which that created was partly due to the special hardship provisions, which do not apply in this case, and partly due to the rough sleepers initiative.

  251
  Much has been made of the parallel that benefits are denied to citizens of this country while appeals are being heard on the benefits decisions that went against them. But if they are later successful, their claims are backdated. No such relief will be available to voluntary agencies or friends who help an asylum seeker during his appeal. Of course I understand that only 4 per cent. of appeals succeed, and much is made of the fact that 96 per cent. fail, but are the 4 per cent. to be penalised because others, with whom they have no connection save that of category, are expected to fail? The fact that, even if successful in their appeals, they continue to lose benefit if the Home Office appeals against the appeal determination has a touch of Kafka about it.
  My right hon. Friends assure me in essence that my fears are groundless, but if they are not, it is on the streets of my constituency, not on the streets of theirs, that this tragedy will be played out. One of my favourite military quotations comes from a British brigadier in Korea, who I believe died last year. He said of his Korean allies:
  "I'm not going to have them executing people on my doorstep."
  Mutatis mutandis, those are my views, too.
  Thus, given that the preparations have not instilled confidence that everything is going to turn out precisely as the Government intend, I cannot give my vote to the Government tonight. What I can do is to give them the benefit of the doubt and not go into the Lobby against them. The benefit of the doubt is afforded to the Government in part because of the cack-handedness of the Opposition: not just because they have settled for a 90-minute debate, though if I were an asylum seeker I would regard that as casual, nor simply because the present arrangements cause genuine problems for race relations—many of my constituents in all honour believe that they are less well treated than the asylum seekers themselves—but most of all, if the Government do not attach sufficient importance to the 4 per cent. who win their appeals, the Opposition seem to see no problem at all in the significance of the 96 per cent. who do not.
  11.22 pm
  Mr. Keith Bradley: This important but all too short debate has raised fundamental issues regarding the rights of genuine asylum seekers coming to this country. The Opposition recognise that there is a problem in dealing with large numbers of asylum applications, but we do not accept that the measures in these regulations are the correct way of dealing with the problem.
  In particular, as a first step, we strongly believe that attention must be focused on the administrative procedures for dealing with applications in order to reduce the unacceptably long delays, many of which appear to be due entirely to gross inefficiency on the part of the Home Office, and the Government's general failure to implement fully the provisions of the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993.
  As the DSS explanatory memorandum on the regulations confirms, it currently takes an average of 18.4 months fully to resolve an asylum application, including any appeal to the immigration authority—in stark contrast with the 1993 Act's target of a maximum of three months. When the Minister replies, will he tell us what action will be taken to increase the efficiency of those procedures? Increased efficiency in itself would reduce the burden on the social security budget.
  252
  The Government highlighted the fact that many so-called "bogus" asylum seekers make an application after entry into the United Kingdom. Again, the DSS explanatory memorandum on the regulations omitted to mention—as my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) said, the regulations make no allowance for this—that those who are genuinely fleeing persecution may have legitimate and wholly understandable reasons other than a change of circumstances for applying for asylum only after entering the country rather than on arrival: for example, to seek the help and support of relatives and friends before putting their fate into the hands of officialdom. It should be noted that people who do not speak English are often not interviewed in detail on arrival, when an interpreter is not available, but are asked to return to the airport after a few days, when an interpreter will be available.
  It is apparent that the majority of genuine after-entry asylum seekers make their applications within a few days, for precisely the reasons that I have given. In that context, it is important to note that in the past the Home Office granted asylum to many after-entry asylum seekers. The Secretary of State tried to deny the figures tonight, but between 1992 and 1994 a total of 2,495 or 6.6 per cent. of after-entry applications were granted asylum, compared with a total of 1,040 or 4.9 per cent. of port applicants. It is reasonable to conclude that all the 2,495 applicants had genuine reasons for seeking asylum after entry into the United Kingdom. The figures show that the Secretary of State is quite wrong to claim, as he did today and in the response to the Social Security Advisory Committee, that the proportion of those recognised as refugees is lower for in-country applicants. Will the Minister comment on those figures when he winds up?
  It is still unclear what the extra cost and burden will be on local authorities, for example, for taking children into care under the Children Act 1989. We know now that they will not receive a 100 per cent. rebate. What percentage will they get, and will the money be ring-fenced?
  Representations against the regulations have been received from local authorities throughout the country and from many organisations representing the welfare and rights of genuine asylum seekers. The fears and concerns of organisations ranging from the Church, Amnesty International, Disability Alliance, the Child Poverty Action Group, the Refugee Council, Shelter, the Law Society and many others have not been satisfactorily addressed by the Government. The Government's own Social Security Advisory Committee told them not to proceed. We accept the arguments of those organisations, and will vote against the regulations tonight.
  11.27 pm
  The Minister for Social Security and Disabled People (Mr. Alistair Burt): Let me briefly remind the House of some of the salient points behind the regulations. First, no one has given proper weight to the fact that the regulations take place against widespread changes in the world which have made economic migration a factor at the end of the 20th century which it never was before. There is ease of communication and travel. I recall The Economist predicting at the beginning of the decade that the 1990s might be the decade of economic migration and that it would affect Europe considerably. We have heard no mention of that.

  253
  Secondly, we are dealing with a more than tenfold increase in the number of asylum applications in this country over a 10-year period. In 1984, there were 2,905 applications for asylum. Last year, there were some 40,000. Some 13,000 dependent people were with those asylum seekers. Not only are there £200 million-worth of social security costs, but each asylum seeker is considered to cost about £6,000 a year in other expenditure.
  Thirdly, there is a widespread view among groups as diverse as Amnesty International and the Select Committee on. Social Security that there is a widespread problem. It is naive to believe that the British benefit and immigration systems have played no part in the rise in numbers that we have seen. At the same time as there have been increases in applications to Britain, there have been decreases in applications to those of our European neighbours who have applied some measure of control to asylum applications.
  With regard to benefit, we seek to distinguish not only between those who are genuine and those who are not, but between those who, when they apply at the port, palpably with nothing, who should be supported, and those who apply later. More than 60 per cent. of those applying for asylum apply more than two months after they have come into the United Kingdom. That information has been provided in a parliamentary answer. We seek to make that distinction because, having said that they had the means to look after themselves while they were here, they should be held to that.
  The British people wish to see—
  It being half-past Eleven o'clock, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 15 (Delegated Legislation (negative procedures)).
  The House divided: Ayes 264, Noes 279.

  Division No. 34]

  [11.30 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Burden, Richard

  Adams, Mrs Irene

  Byers, Stephen

  Ainger, Nick

  Caborn, Richard

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Callaghan, Jim

  Allen, Graham

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Alton, David

  Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

  Campbel-Savours, D N

  Armstrong, Hilary

  Canavan, Dennis

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Cann, Jamie

  Ashton, Joe

  Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)

  Austin-Walker, John

  Chidgey, David

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Barnes, Harry

  Clapham, Michael

  Battle, John

  Clark, Dr David (South Shields)

  Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)

  Bell, Stuart

  Clelland, David

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Coffey, Ann

  Benton, Joe

  Cohen, Harry

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Connarty, Michael

  Berry, Roger

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Betts, Clive

  Cook, Robin (Livingston)

  Boateng, Paul

  Corbett, Robin

  Bradley, Keith

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Corston, Jean

  Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Cousins, Jim

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Cunningham, jim (Covy SE)

  254

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John

  Keen, Alan

  Cunningham, Roseanna

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)

  Dafis, Cynog

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

  Dalyell, Tam

  Khabra, Piara S

  Darling, Alistair

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Davidson, Ian

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)

  Lestor, Joan (Eccles)

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

  Liddell, Mrs Helen

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Litherland, Robert

  Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

  Livingstone, Ken

  Denham, John

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Dewar, Donald

  Loyden, Eddie

  Dixon, Don

  Lynne, Ms Liz

  Dobson, Frank

  McAllion, John

  Dowd, Jim

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Eagle, Ms Angela

  McCartney, Ian

  Eastham, Ken

  McCartney, Robert

  Etherington, Bill

  McCrea, The Reverend William

  Evans, John (St Helens N)

  McFall, John

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  McKelvey, William

  Fatchett, Derek

  McLeish, Henry

  Faulds, Andrew

  Maclennan, Robert

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  McMaster, Gordon

  Flynn, Paul

  McNamara, Kevin

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  MacShane, Denis

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  McWilliam, John

  Foulkes, George

  Madden, Max

  Fyfe, Maria

  Maddock, Diana

  Galbraith, Sam

  Mahon, Alice

  Galloway, George

  Mandelson, Peter

  Gapes, Mike

  Marek, Dr John

  Garrett, John

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  George, Bruce

  Martin, Michael J (Springburn)

  Gerrard, Neil

  Martlew, Eric

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Maxton, John

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Meacher, Michael

  Godsiff, Roger

  Meale, Alan

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Michael, Alun

  Gordon, Mildred

  Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)

  Graham, Thomas

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

  Milburn, Alan

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Miller, Andrew

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Grocott, Bruce

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Gunnell, John

  Morgan, Rhodri

  Hall, Mike

  Morley, Elliot

  Hanson, David

  Mons, Rt Hon Alfred (Wy'nshawe)

  Harvey, Nick

  Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Morris, R Hon John (Aberavon)

  Henderson, Doug

  Mucle, George

  Heppell, John

  Mullin, Chris

  Hinchliffe, David

  Murphy, Paul

  Hodge, Margaret

  Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)

  Hoey, Kate

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Home Robertson, John

  O'Brien, Mike (N W'kshire)

  Hood, Jimmy

  O'Brien, William (Normanton)

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Oiner, Bill

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

  O'Neill, Martin

  Howarth, George (Knowsley North)

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Howells, Dr Kim (Pontypridd)

  Pearson, Ian

  Hoyle, Doug

  Pendry, Tom

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Pike, Peter L

  Hume, John

  Pope, Greg

  Hutton, John

  Powell, Ray (Ogmore)

  Illsley, Eric

  Prentice, Bridget (Lew'm E)

  Ingram, Adam

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Jamieson, David

  Purchase, Ken

  Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)

  Quin, Ms Joyce

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Randall, Stuart

  Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)

  Raynsford, Nick

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)

  Reid, Dr John

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Rendel, David

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Robertson, George (Hamilton)

  255

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Rogers, Allan

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Rooker, Jeff

  Timms, Stephen

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Tipping, Paddy

  Rowlands, Ted

  Touhig, Don

  Ruddock, Joan

  Tyler, Paul

  Salmond, Alex

  Vaz, Keith

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold

  Sheerman, Barry

  Wallace, James

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Walley, Joan

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Short, Clare

  Wareing, Robert N

  Simpson, Alan

  Watson, Mike

  Skinner, Dennis

  Welsh, Andrew

  Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

  Wicks, Malcolm

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

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)

  Snape, Peter

  Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

  Soley, Clive

  Wilson, Brian

  Spearing, Nigel

  Winnick, David

  Spellar, John

  Wise, Audrey

  Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)

  Worthington, Tony

  Steel, Rt Hon Sir David

  Wright, Dr Tony

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Stevenson, George

  Stott, Roger

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Strang, Dr. Gavin

  Mr. Peter Hain and

  Straw, Jack

  Mr. Dennis Turner.

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)

  Churchill, Mr

  Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan

  Clappison, James

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Amess, David

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ru'clif)

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Arbuthnot, James

  Coe, Sebastian

  Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

  Congdon, David

  Ashby, David

  Conway, Derek

  Atkins, Rt Hon Robert

  Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

  Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)

  Couchman, James

  Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)

  Cran, James

  Baldry, Tony

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

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)

  Bates, Michael

  Davies, Quentin (Stamford)

  Batiste, Spencer

  Davis, David (Boothferry)

  Bellingham, Henry

  Day, Stephen

  Bendall, Vivian

  Deva, Nirj Joseph

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Devlin, Tim

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Body, Sir Richard

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Dover, Den

  Booth, Hartley

  Duncan, Alan

  Boswell, Tim

  Duncan-Smith, Iain

  Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

  Dunn, Bob

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia

  Durant, Sir Anthony

  Bowden, Sir Andrew

  Dykes, Hugh

  Bowls, John

  Eggar, Rt Hon Tim

  Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes

  Elletson, Harold

  Brandreth, Gyles

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Brazier, Julian

  Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Bright, Sir Graham

  Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)

  Brown, M (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)

  Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

  Bruce, Ian (Dorset)

  Evennett, David

  Burt, Alistair

  Faber, David

  Butcher, John

  Fabricant, Michael

  Butler, Peter

  Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

  Butterfill, John

  Fishburn, Dudley

  Carlisle, John (Luton North)

  Forman, Nigel

  Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Forsyth, Rt Hon Michael (Stirling)

  Carrington, Matthew

  Forth, Eric

  Carttiss, Michael

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Cash, William

  Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

  Chapman, Sir Sydney

  Fox, Rt Hon Sir Marcus (Shipley)

  256

  Freeman, Rt Hon Roger

  McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

  French, Douglas

  Madel, Sir David

  Gale, Roger

  Maitland, Lady Olga

  Gallie, Phil

  Malone, Gerald

  Gardiner, Sir George

  Mans, Keith

  Garnier, Edward

  Marlow, Tony

  Gill, Christopher

  Marshall, John (Hendon S)

  Gillan, Cheryl

  Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair

  Mates, Michael

  Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick

  Gorst, Sir John

  Mellor, Rt Hon David

  Grant, Sir A (SW Cambs)

  Merchant, Piers

  Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

  Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

  Greenway, John (Ryedale)

  Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)

  Moate, Sir Roger

  Grylls, Sir Michael

  Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector

  Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Needham, Rt Hon Richard

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald

  Neubert, Sir Michael

  Hamilton, Neil (Talton)

  Newton, Rt Hon Tony

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy

  Nicholson, David (Taunton)

  Hannam, Sir John

  Norris, Steve

  Hargreaves, Andrew

  Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley

  Harris, David

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Hawkins, Nick

  Ottaway, Richard

  Hawksley, Warren

  Page, Richard

  Hayes, Jerry

  Paice, James

  Heald, Oliver

  Patten, Rt Hon John

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Hendry, Charles

  Pawsey, James

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Hicks, Robert

  Porter, Barry (Wirral S)

  Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence

  Porter, David (Waveney)

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tharn)

  Powell, William (Colby)

  Horam, John

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Hordem, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Renton, Rt Hon Tim

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Richards, Rod

  Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

  Riddick, Graham

  Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)

  Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm

  Hunter, Andrew

  Robathan, Andrew

  Jack, Michael

  Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

  Jessel, Toby

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela

  Jones, Robert B (W Hertfdshr)

  Sackville, Tom

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

  Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine

  Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Key, Robert

  Shaw, David (Dover)

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

  Kirkhope, Timothy

  Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

  Knapman, Roger

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)

  Sims, Roger

  Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)

  Skeet, Sir Trevor

  Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'stn)

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Knox, Sir David

  Soames, Nicholas

  Kynoch, George (Kincardine)

  Spencer, Sir Derek

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

  Lamont, Rt Hon Norman

  Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)

  Lang, Rt Hon Ian

  Spink, Dr Robert

  Lawrence, Sir Ivan

  Spring, Richard

  Legg, Barry

  Sproat, Iain

  Leigh, Edward

  Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

  Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Lidington, David

  Steen, Anthony

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Stephen, Michael

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Stern, Michael

  Lord, Michael

  Stewart, Allan

  Luff, Peter

  Sumberg, David

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Sweeney, Walter

  MacKay, Andrew

  Sykes, John

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  257

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Ward, John

  Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

  Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Waterson, Nigel

  Thomason, Roy

  Watts, John

  Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

  Wells, Bowen

  Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

  Whitney, Ray

  Thomton, Sir Malcolm

  Whittingdale, John

  Thumham, Peter

  Widdecombe, Ann

  Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

  Wiggin, Sir Jerry

  Tracey, Richard

  Wilkinson, John

  Tredinnick, David

  Willetts, David

  Trend, Michael

  Wilshire, David

  Trotter, Neville

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'fld)

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Wood, Timothy

  Viggers, Peter

  Yeo, Tim

  Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Walden, George

  Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Waller, Gary

  Mr. Simon Burns and

  Mr. Gary Streeter.

  Question accordingly negatived.

  Mr. Amarjit Singh
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Wells.]
  11.44 pm
  Sir Trevor Skeet: I want to raise the case of Mr. Amarjit Singh, who wishes to come to this country to see his grandmother who has terminal cancer. He has made three applications—one on 17 August 1993, another on 24 October 1994 and a third on 28 March 1995—all of which have been refused. Many of the reasons that have been given for refusal are, in my judgment, insubstantial.
  An example of that with the third application was the allegation that Mr. Singh did not have full knowledge of his grandmother's illness—yet he received his information from the high commission doctor, so that should have been adequate. It was also said that there was no evidence confirming his business in India or that he had lived with his grandmother since the death of his father in 1979.
  The sick lady, Mrs. Seso Kaur, wrote to me on 25 April 1995 saying:
  "I brought up my grandson from a toddler when his father … died. I even gave up my work in a local school so that my daughter-in-law [Amarjit's mother] could take my place to earn some money in order to raise her family."
  It is worth observing that the other argument that was advanced related to the paternal uncle. It was suggested that there was no reason why Amarjit Singh should visit his grandmother to the exclusion of the paternal uncle and other, closer, relatives. That argument was adequately answered by the consultant, Dr. K. Farrington, in his letter of 2 November 1994. He said of the sick lady:
  "She has a strong desire to see her grandson, Amarjit Singh, whom she brought up from a baby and who lived with her until she came to this country 6 years ago and for whom she naturally feel close ties and affection."
  It is apparent that some of the reasons for refusal were thin indeed.
  On 5 September 1995, the sick lady wrote:
  "It would seem there is no end to the tragedy in my family. You are already aware of Amarjit's father's death. And now his mother, Mrs. Joginder Kaur has also died on the 28/8/1995. I am now extremely worried not only about Amarjit but also about his younger sister Usha Devi who is 17 years old."
  It is rather interesting in such a case to have blatant refusals from the high commission in India, which is supposed to be doing a proper job.
  I want to refer to the medical condition of Mrs. Kaur. There have been seven communications, three of them to the high commission in New Delhi—the communications by consultant J. H. B. Saunders on 1 December 1992; by Dr. Agrawal, the GP to the high commission, on 5 October 1994 on the lady's medical condition; and from Maria Eckford, social worker to the high commission, on 1 October 1994. The high commission was apprised of the situation and of the lady's deteriorating circumstances as far back as 1992, yet there have been constant refusals.
  It may be important for me to bring the House up to date. On 3 January 1996, consultant Ken Farrington BSc MD FRCB wrote:
  "Further to my previous letters about this lady, I am writing to advise you of a change in her circumstances. She has now developed a recurrence of her carcinoma of the gall-bladder. I am afraid her

  259
  prognosis is now very poor and very limited to weeks. She is still desperate to see her grandson and I would appeal to you to do all you can to ensure that this is possible in the required time-scale."
  In his earlier letter of 24 November 1995, Dr. Farrington said that Mrs. Kaur had chronic renal failure and had been receiving haemodialysis programmes since September 1994. An earlier letter gives a good indication of the way Dr. Farrington feels about the matter. In his letter of 19 December 1994, he wrote:
  "I was appalled to hear that this man's Visa application to visit his grandmother in the UK has been refused, in spite of my strong support … I would urge you most strongly to grant this Visa to allow this humanitarian visit as soon as possible."
  I need hardly say that the consultant has responded most positively, and I give him full marks for the attention that he has paid to this case. He wrote me no fewer than six letters—on 2 November 1994, 19 December 1994, 11 January 1995, 19 April 1995, 24 November 1995 and 3 January 1996.
  It would seem to be an overwhelming case, and I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Minister for coming here tonight to put forward the case for the defence for the entry clearance officer in New Delhi. For humanitarian reasons, we should consider this case much more deeply than it has been considered up to now. Two Ministers have been involved, and I have seen both on the matter. I am grateful to the present Minister for writing to me on 22 January.
  I shall put certain specific points to my right hon. Friend, as I want to give him a full opportunity to state his case. There is no need to interview Mr. Singh again, as three rejections have been made on rather insubstantial grounds. There is no proof of guilt—only suspicion. The compassionate case now outweighs any doubts about the attitude of Mr. Singh, which can be explained by family distress. If there is any further delay, the course of the disease is liable to overtake any further consultation. Innocent cases are apt to be sacrificed, while international swindlers manage to foil the most skilful diplomats.
  I make my final plea to the Minister. On grounds of pure humanity, it his duty to overrule the entry clearance officer who has found it difficult to see beyond the paper before him. The question is whether my right hon. Friend has the courage to use his discretion.
  When we set up an instrument for very good reasons—checking visas at the place of origin to find out whether people are entitled to come for a short stay in the United Kingdom—certain aberrations creep in. The bureaucrats intervene and humanity is disregarded.
  In cases such as this—I have tried to settle it with the Minister, but have had to make it public—my right hon. Friend has a way out. He can get assurances from the family, from the temple to which this man is attached and from me that he will return on the date indicated. My right hon. Friend can also lay down conditions for his stay in the United Kingdom. He can say that he is not entitled to come here for three months, but can stay for only one week—or 10 day—and must report to the police every day and return at the end of the stay.
  That would make the visit possible and enable my right hon. Friend to meet the interests of a lady who is dying and making her final plea to the state in defence of which he will speak tonight.
  11.56 pm
  The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Jeremy Hanley): My hon. Friend the Member for North Bedfordshire (Sir T. Skeet) raises some important issues, and I welcome this opportunity to comment on the operation of our entry clearance system overseas and to make some points about the Singh case, although, as I hope that the House will understand, I am constrained from discussing that in great detail for reasons of confidentiality towards the applicant. I am particularly grateful to my hon. Friend for the regular courtesy in the way in which he has expressed himself to my predecessor and myself.
  First, some general points. Operating cost-effective immigration controls abroad entails facilitating the entry of genuine visitors. We need to facilitate the entry of business people, students and others who qualify under the immigration rules, while preventing the admission of those whose real intention is to work or settle here illegally.
  I am conscious of the fact that business and tourist visitors provide a significant proportion of this country's invisible earnings. The United Kingdom is the world's sixth largest tourist destination, with about 20.6 million visits in 1994, and it is the third largest destination for international conferences.
  The tourism industry contributes 5.3 per cent. of gross domestic product and creates 1.5 million jobs, so it would clearly be foolhardy to operate a visa-issuing system that was so restrictive or obstructive that it damaged such an important contribution to our national economy. Obviously, we are careful to avoid doing so, as becomes clear from a glance at the figures.
  In 1994—the last full year for which figures are available—out of the 20.6 million visits, our embassies and consular posts overseas processed 1.32 million visa applications. More than 1 million of those applications were for short-term entry clearance, either to visit this country or to study here for a period of less than six months. Of that number, just over 900,000–901,560 for the record—visas were issued, mostly on examination of the paperwork or after an interview lasting less than three minutes. I regard that as providing an efficient and professional service to travellers.
  Entry clearance is carried out in 159 posts and accounts for 9.3 per cent. of Foreign and Commonwealth Office expenditure overseas. After the introduction of the common visa list later this year, that is likely to rise to 10.13 per cent. Entry clearance work is demand-led but fees for entry clearance work covered 83 per cent. of its cost in 1993–94 and it is Government policy to move eventually to self-sufficiency on a full-cost basis.
  The level of entry clearance fees, which is reviewed annually, was last raised in January 1995. The fee for a settlement entry clearance will increase in two further stages to achieve full cost recovery in 1997–98. Work in 1994–95 required 915 man-years of staff time and generated £38 million in entry clearance fees.
  At present, nationals of 87 countries require visas to enter the United Kingdom, but that figure will rise to 101 as a result of the common visa list. Our visa operation overseas is managed from the London end by the migration and visa department of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, which, in conjunction with the immigration service of the Home Office, runs 10 training

  261
  courses a year for 120 to 140 prospective entry clearance officers. Each course lasts for three weeks, at the end of which time officers are expected to have a clear understanding of the immigration rules and the necessary knowledge to relate each individual application to those rules. No officer is posted overseas to do entry clearance work unless he or she has successfully completed that course.
  Entry clearance officers, although relatively low in rank, are people of integrity, who are fully trained for their work. However, the training of entry clearance officers does not stop with the successful completion of the training course. Once in post, officers receive guidance and on-the-job training from the entry clearance manager and from his or her more experienced colleagues. Most of our larger visa issuing posts also run regular training courses for their staff. A series of regional training conferences has been held over the past two years.
  All applications for entry clearance to the United Kingdom are considered in accordance with the statement of changes in immigration rules laid before the House on 23 May 1994. All applications for entry clearance must be made overseas. Applicants are required to complete a visa application form and pay the appropriate fee. After the application and any supporting documents provided by the applicant have been checked, an entry clearance officer can, in straightforward circumstances, issue the visa without further inquiries. In fact, about 68.3 per cent. of all applicants are dealt with in that way.
  The balance of applicants are required to attend an interview to establish their intentions. Those who are unable to speak or understand English are interviewed in their own language with the aid of an official interpreter. At the beginning and end of the interview, the applicant is asked whether he or she could understand the interpreter and the questions. If there is no official interpreter, arrangements can be made for interpretation. A personal interview is thus an essential part of the entry clearance process where the application is less than straightforward.
  Interviews are conducted according to standard guidelines and are designed not to intimidate or otherwise distress applicants. ECOs endeavour to ask questions in a courteous and tactful way and make allowances for applicants who appear nervous, especially those who have previously been refused entry clearance.
  It is regrettable that not all applications are successful, but it is important to keep a sense of proportion about the refusal rate. In 1994, we issued about 1 million visas, and over 90 per cent. of those who applied for entry clearance were granted it. I should add that a decision to refuse entry clearance is never taken lightly. I can assure my hon. Friend that, in reaching their decisions, entry clearance officers take all the relevant factors into account, including information supplied by right hon. and hon. Members and by sponsors. Correspondence is also taken into account. I have seen the files. I have seen files at many posts throughout the world. I make a point of looking at files and the evidence written down by ECOs at interviews. It strikes me that, ultimately, the applicant's motives and intentions decide whether entry clearance is granted. That is so in the case of Mr. Amarjit Singh.
  262
  The facts of the case—I repeat that these are the facts that I am prepared to give tonight for privacy reasons—are that Mr. Amarjit Singh has applied three times for entry clearance to visit his seriously ill grandmother. There is no doubt of that. But he has failed to satisfy an entry clearance officer on each occasion that he genuinely seeks entry only for the purpose and period stated, that he is a genuine visitor and will leave the United Kingdom at the end of his visit.
  As my hon. Friend said, entry clearance was refused in August 1993, October 1994 and March 1995. At interview, the entry clearance officer learned of the compassionate nature of the case. It also emerged that Mr. Singh is young—he is 25 years old—and earns a modest monthly income. He told the ECO that an aunt living in the UK helped to support the family in India and would pay for his visit. Mrs. Kaur also has closer relatives living in India who have not applied for entry clearance to visit her.
  My hon. Friend has been assiduous in pursuing this matter with my Department. No hon. Member could have done more. He has written several times in support of the application and had a meeting with my predecessor on 6 February 1995 to discuss it personally. He had another meeting with me on 4 December 1995. He handed over additional evidence of the deteriorating health of Mr. Singh's grandmother, Mrs. Seso Kaur, which was passed to the ECO. But that does not necessarily say anything about Mr. Singh's intention to return to India.
  The ECO was aware of the compassionate circumstances—Mr. Singh's grandmother's illness—and took that into consideration. But he also had to take into account Mr. Singh's personal circumstances in India and other factors that emerged at interview. As in all cases where an application is refused, the decision on Mr. Singh's latest application was referred to the entry clearance manager in New Delhi. He also gave proper consideration to the compassionate circumstances and to my hon. Friend's representations of interest and support, but was satisfied that, on the evidence available, the decision was correct and in accordance with the immigration rules. It is not reasonable to review a case that has already been thoroughly evaluated in the light of my hon. Friend's strong representations since 1993 without fresh evidence.
  The judgment of those two officers was applied independently to the question whether, on the balance of probabilities, Mr. Singh was a genuine visitor who would leave the UK at the end of his visit. Using the balance of probabilities as the benchmark means that an ECO must be "satisfied". That is all. He need not be convinced outright or subject to gilt-edged, copper-bottomed assurances or guarantees, but simply satisfied.
  The balance of probabilities works like any other balance: if one puts more weight in the form of new evidence on one end of the scales, they will tilt in a different direction. That is the way forward in this case, and my hon. Friend mentioned certain details that could be useful on a further application. A fresh application based on satisfactory evidence that only a visit is intended could be helpful.
  Sir Trevor Skeet: In his letter to me, my right hon. Friend said:

  263
  "As mentioned in my letter of 15 January, the way forward is for Mr. Singh to submit a fresh application which can be considered by an ECO. You will appreciate that I cannot guarantee the outcome in advance. That will be a decision for the Entry Clearance Section at New Delhi."
  Time is short. Such cases can go remarkably fast. Is my right hon. Friend prepared to assure me that, if an application is made, Mr. Singh can, if authorised, come to this country within a week?
  Mr. Hanley: If a fresh application is made, I can assure my hon. Friend that the entry clearance officer will look at the evidence as presented to him. The evidence that my hon. Friend listed in his contribution this evening could well help to tip the balance, but I cannot say that. It is for the entry clearance officer to come to a conclusion and for the entry clearance manager subsequently to consider it.
  I sometimes have reason to write to hon. Members expressing disappointment that, despite protestations to the contrary beforehand, an applicant granted a visa in the light of an hon. Member's intervention has subsequently applied to remain here permanently. It pains me to have to embarrass hon. Members in such a way, but it illustrates the fact that hon. Members are as capable as anyone else of being deceived. I do not necessarily believe that in the case of my hon. Friend; I believe in his total sincerity.
  If the evidence that my hon. Friend mentioned in tonight's debate is given in writing, perhaps we can look at it again. It is for the ECO to look at that; it would be wrong for me, merely because of pressure from my hon. Friend, to make a decision and to make a statement in the House. It would mean that justice was subject to pressure—perhaps even bullying, although my hon. Friend could never be called a bully, because he makes his points so courteously.
  Sir Trevor Skeet: Under the rules, the Minister has a discretion. In 32 years in the House I have noticed hard cases, but I think that this is the hardest case. The Minister could exercise his discretion and overrule the ECO. He could decide that the case is now serious; he should consult the consultant; he should take into account what the family think about it; he should pin his researcher down to a briefer period. I should have thought that on that basis he would be adequately covered. Has he any proof over the 30 years of serious mistakes that I have made in evaluating people who come to me?
  Mr. Hanley: As the Minister responsible for entry clearance matters arising overseas, I am occasionally
  264
  asked to reverse ECOs' decisions, but I rarely feel able to do so. It is unnecessary, because adequate safeguards already exist to ensure that the decision that is made is fair. ECOs' decisions are subject to review routinely by the next tier of management and randomly through the offices of the independent monitor Dame Elizabeth Anson.
  Dame Elizabeth was appointed under the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993, with terms of reference that require her to take a sample of about 1,800 refusals a year drawn randomly by an established statistical formula. Only rarely, therefore, will there be any reason for ministerial intervention in the decision-making process. Normally, the immigration rules must be followed. But when new evidence is presented, representations can and do result in the ECO reversing the decision without the need for any ministerial involvement. In her 1995 report, Dame Elizabeth said that she had received a number of letters from right hon. and hon. Members who have been successful in obtaining a favourable decision.
  I have visited a number of entry clearance posts and found them to be staffed by well-motivated officers who are anxious to be seen to apply an immigration procedure that is firm but fair. I have visited the entry clearance office in New Delhi; I have met the entry clearance manager and the majority of entry clearance officers. I am impressed with their genuineness and assiduousness—as was my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary when he visited that office in New Delhi. There has been a staggering change in that office in the 10 years since I was last there. We now treat people, not just as humans, but in comfort and compassionately, which is vital if we are to carry out an important service, with people who deserve to be treated properly.
  We still have to remember that we are dealing with humans, and human nature being what it is, there will always be those who set out to defeat the system for their own personal ends. If we treated people with suspicion from the outset, the numbers that I have mentioned would show that. The majority of people receive entry clearance, and there is the chance to make another application and, therefore, to succeed in time.
  I am convinced that the entry clearance system at present in place is operated fairly.
  The motion having been made after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned accordingly at fourteen minutes past Twelve midnight.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Magistrates (Doncaster)
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when and in which newspapers the advisory committee for Doncaster advertised for applicants for positions as magistrates; and if he will publish the advertisement. [9903]

  Mr. Jonathan Evans
  The Lord Chancellor's advisory committee for Doncaster placed advertisements in the Doncaster Free Press, South Yorkshire Times and Doncaster Star on 25 May 1995. The text of the advertisement is shown. In addition 20,000 leaflets were delivered with the Doncaster Courier on 21 July 1995.

  COULD YOU SERVE THE COMMUNITY AS A JUSTICE OF THE PEACE?
  The answer is yes, if you have the necessary personal qualities such as common-sense, courage, compassion and the time to offer about 18 days (or 36 half days) a year plus time for training, which would give you a unique insight into the skills required for decision making. Justices of the Peace, often called magistrates, are at the heart of Britain's system of justice and come from all walks of life, many different ethnic backgrounds and all sectors of the community.
  Justices of the Peace are unpaid but they may receive certain allowances to cover travelling expenses, subsistence and financial loss occasioned by the performance of their duties.
  Justices of the Peace in England and Wales are appointed on behalf of the Sovereign by the Lord Chancellor on the recommendation of local Advisory Committees.
  The Advisory Committee for the Doncaster District are currently looking for men and women who live in or within 15 miles of the Metropolitan Borough boundary and who are suitable to be appointed as Justices of the Peace. If you are between 27 and 50 and would like to know more about this vitally important public duty they want to hear from you. If you are between 50 and 60, you may still be considered.
  For an application form, information on the selection process and what is entailed, please write to me at the address below, or telephone (01302) 366711.
  S. W. Stokes
  Secretary to the Lord Chancellor's Advisory Committee
  The Law Courts
  PO Box 49
  College Road
  Doncaster DN1 3HT

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Newbury Bypass
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what he estimates the cost will be to the local police constabulary of policing the site of the Newbury bypass. [9343]
  114
  Mr. Maclean
  Policing of the bypass site is a joint operation between Thames Valley police and Hampshire constabulary.

  Estimated total policing costs in 1995–96 have been assessed by Thames Valley police as £1.525 million and by Hampshire constabulary as £478,000. This includes the costs of officers who would otherwise be on duty elsewhere in the force areas.

  Sex Offenders
  Mr. Alton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what steps Her Majesty's Government are presently taking to examine the conviction in Sweden of Bengt Bolin under Sweden's extra-territorial law on sex offences against children; [9672]

  (2) when Her Majesty's Government expect to be able to make a statement on the implications of the Bengt Bolin case in Sweden for future United Kingdom legislation on child sex offences committed aborad. [9673]

  Mr. Maclean
  My officials have obtained from the Swedish authorities various documents concerning the Bolin case, including transcripts of the court proceedings. The Swedish chief prosecutor gave a presentation about this case to an Interpol working group in November last year, and Home Office officials who attended the presentation spoke to him about the case. My officials have also recently met a representative from the Swedish Ministry for Foreign Affairs to discuss this matter. In addition, a meeting is being arranged with the Thai prosecutor who was involved in the Bolin case.

  The information so far received suggests that there would have been difficulties in securing a conviction in this country on the basis of the evidence presented to the Swedish court. The United Kingdom could, however, unlike Sweden, have extradited a British offender in similar circumstances. We remain of the view that this is the best approach, and have not been persuaded by the experience of the Swedes that extra-territorial jurisdiction would be helpful in dealing with British tourists who commit offences overseas.

  School Bus Drivers
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what responsibilities the police have for checking the suitability of applicants to be school bus drivers; [10185]

  (2) if applicants for school bus driving positions are always checked by the police against a central criminal database; [10186]

  (3) how many applicants for school bus driving vacancies were checked against the central criminal database in 1995. [10187]

  Mr. Maclean
  The police have responsibility for carrying out criminal record checks on applicants for jobs in the statutory sector if the applicant will have a substantial level of regular unsupervised access to children, particularly if such access is on a one-to-one basis in an isolated setting. The Association of Chief Police Officers and the Home Office have agreed guidance on which groups should be eligible for checks and this is set out in Home Office circulars. School bus drivers are listed as one of the groups which should not
  115
  normally be subject to checks as it is assumed that, for most journeys, they will be transporting large numbers of children with a teacher or parent also present. If a bus driver is likely to be transporting a child or small number of children on a regular basis without a teacher or parent being present, the police have discretion to carry out a check.

  If the police are satisfied that a check is justified, the applicant will be checked both against Phoenix, the national criminal record database, and local police records. No statistics are kept on the number of applicants for jobs as school bus drivers who have been checked.

  Electro-shock Equipment
  Mrs. Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what was the duration of the hard arrests trial programme; what areas of equipment, policy or training were involved; and what was the budget of the programme; [10249]

  (2) what research his Department has carried out since 1987 on the operation, safety or use of electronic shock equipment. [10248]

  Mr. Maclean
  I assume that the hon. Member's interest relates to the issue of electronic shock equipment. Neither my Department nor the police service has any knowledge of "the hard arrest trial programme" or of any other programme in this area.

  Chief officers of police, with their police authorities, are responsible for deciding what equipment to obtain for their officers, either for testing or for introduction. A number of forces have obtained electro-shock equipment for use against ferocious dogs and training in their use would have been undertaken at the local level. The cost of training was met from existing resources. As I have made clear previously, no force has obtained any form of this equipment for use against people.

  In 1990 the Forensic Science Service published a theoretical assessment of the effects of electric shock weapons.

  Premium Telephone Numbers
  Mr. Allason
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what guidelines he has issued to police

  Police force

  Specials1

  Regulars2

  Percentage3

  Population (000's)4

  Specials per 5 thousand population5

  Avon and Somerset

  676

  2,986

  22.6

  1,456

  2.3

  Bedfordshire

  196

  1,116

  17.6

  543

  1.8

  Cambridgeshire

  264

  1,254

  21.1

  688

  1.9

  Cheshire

  269

  1,950

  13.8

  976

  1.4

  City of London

  81

  859

  9.3

  5

  81.0

  Cleveland

  204

  1,429

  14.3

  560

  1.8

  Cumbria

  221

  1,143

  19.3

  490

  2.3

  Derbyshire

  440

  1,762

  25.0

  954

  2.3

  Devon and Cornwall

  1,079

  2,871

  37,6

  1,530

  1.9

  Dorset

  230

  1,272

  18.1

  672

  1.7

  Durham

  192

  1,376

  14.1

  608

  1.6

  Dyfed-Powys

  304

  977

  31.1

  473

  3.2

  Essex

  548

  2,897

  18.9

  1,497

  1.8

  Gloucestershire

  330

  1,141

  28.9

  550

  3.0

  Greater Manchester

  749

  7,026

  10.7

  2,578

  1.5

  Gwent

  129

  1,006

  12.8

  462

  1.4

  116
  forces on the use of premium telephone numbers for services to the public. [10256]

  Mr. Maclean
  None.

  Police Vehicles (Accidents)
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many road traffic accidents involving police patrol vehicles were reported for the years 1994 and 1995; and how many police officers or civilians sustained serious or fatal injuries in such accidents. [10408]

  Mr. Maclean
  The latest information which is available centrally, in respect of police forces in England and Wales, is for the year 1993, and is shown. The information on injuries relates to those where death or serious injury has arisen in the course of either police pursuits or responses to emergency calls.

  Police vehicle accidents in 1993—all types of police vehicles

  All accidents: 18,631.

  Accidents in course of pursuits or responses to emergency calls: 5,887.

  Police fatal injury: 5

  Police serious injury: 113

  Civilian fatal injury: 29

  Civilian serious injury: 187

  Special Constables
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the number of special constables in each police force in England, indicating in each case the ratio of specials to full-time officers and to the population of the force area. [10631]

  Mr. Maclean
  The following table, which is broken down by police force area, shows:the number of special constables in post on 30 September 19951;
  the number of regular officers in post on 30 September 19952;
  the proportion of regular officers the number of special constables notionally represents (disregarding discrepancies in hours of duty3:
  the population of each force area according to the latest available estimates from the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys (mid-1994)4; and
  the number of special constables per 5,000 population5.

  Many special constables perform about four hours' duty a week.
  117

  Police force

  Specials1

  Regulars2

  Percentage3

  Population (000's)4

  Specials per 5 thousand population5

  Hampshire

  549

  3,307

  16.6

  1,730

  1.6

  Hertfordshire

  307

  1,704

  18.0

  853

  1.8

  Humberside

  380

  2,024

  18.8

  890

  2.1

  Kent

  598

  3,099

  19.3

  1,546

  1.9

  Lancashire

  594

  3,194

  18.6

  1,424

  2.1

  Leicestershire

  334

  1,860

  18.0

  917

  1.8

  Lincolnshire

  311

  1,164

  26.7

  606

  2.6

  Merseyside

  349

  4,536

  7.7

  1,434

  1.2

  Metropolitan

  1,657

  27,395

  6.0

  7,455

  1.1

  Norfolk

  325

  1,391

  23.4

  769

  2.1

  Northamptonshire

  298

  1,160

  25.7

  595

  2.5

  Northumbria

  479

  3,610

  13.3

  1,442

  1.7

  North Wales

  323

  1.351

  23.9

  658

  2.5

  North Yorkshire

  359

  1,310

  27.4

  727

  2.5

  Nottinghamshire

  534

  2,314

  23.1

  1,031

  2.6

  South Wales

  469

  2,954

  15.9

  1,330

  1.8

  South Yorkshire

  423

  3,041

  13.9

  1,305

  1.6

  Staffordshire

  687

  2,190

  31.4

  1,054

  3.3

  Suffolk

  419

  1,158

  36.2

  649

  3.2

  Surrey

  241

  1,656

  14.6

  774

  1.6

  Sussex

  514

  3,020

  17.0

  1,449

  1.8

  Thames Valley

  764

  3,759

  20.3

  2,017

  1.9

  Warwickshire

  351

  982

  35.7

  496

  3.5

  West Mercia

  587

  2,007

  29.2

  1,116

  2.6

  West Midlands

  849

  7,078

  12.0

  2,628

  1.6

  West Yorkshire

  783

  5,122

  15.3

  2,104

  1.9

  Wiltshire

  259

  1,236

  21.0

  588

  2.2

  Total

  19,655

  124,697

  —

  51,629

  —

  1(a) Number of special constables in post at 30 September 1995.

  2(b) Number of regular officers in post at 30 September 1995.

  3(c) Special constables as an equivalent percentage of regular officers.

  4(d) Population of police force area at 30 June 1994. (in thousands).

  5(e) Number of special constables per five thousand head of population.

  Standards in Public Life
  Mr. Rooker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to complete the review of the law relating to the bribery of hon. Members referred to in the Government's response to the first report from the Committee on Standards in Public Life, Cm 2931. [10559]

  Mr. Maclean
  The Government are committed to the consolidation of the corruption statutes, and have welcomed the opportunity to clarify the position of hon. Members as part of that exercise. I cannot say at this stage when a conclusion might be reached.

  Immigration and Asylum Interviews
  Mr. Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has reconsidered requests for tape recording immigration and asylum interviews at ports of entry and at the Home Office. [10478]

  Mr. Kirkhope
  We have no plans to allow asylum and immigration interviews at ports of entry or the Home Office to be tape recorded.

  Juvenile Offenders
  Ms Janet Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of juvenile offenders subject to a supervision order reoffend within two years of the making of the order. [10863]
  118
  Mr. Maclean
  The latest available information relates to a sample of those sentenced for standard list offences during three separate weeks of 1991.

  Eighty per cent. of those aged under 17 when sentenced to a supervision order were reconvicted within two years of the making of the order. This reconviction rate includes only reconvictions for standard list offences and relates only to offenders sentenced for such offences—standard list offences consist of all indictable offences and some of the more serious summary offences. The reconviction rate is based on a sample 275 offenders.

  Reconviction rates will be influenced by criminal histories and types of offences committed.

  Ms Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of juvenile offenders who receive custodial sentences reoffend within two years of release. [10864]

  Mr. Maclean
  The latest available information relates to prisoners discharged from Prison Service establishments during 1992.

  Eighty-nine per cent. of those aged under 17 when sentenced to custody were reconvicted within two years of release from prison. This reconviction rate includes only reconvictions for standard list offences—these consist of all indictable offences and some of the more serious summary offences.

  Reconviction rates will be influenced by criminal histories and type of offences committed.

  Dangerous Dogs Legislation
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many dogs are currently being held under the dangerous dogs legislation. [11263]

  Mr. Sackville
  There are presently 81 dogs held in police custody in England and Wales under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991. No dogs are currently being held by the police under other dog legislation.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many dogs have been destroyed under the dangerous dogs legislation to date. [11249]

  Mr. Sackville
  Information on the number of dogs destroyed under the dangerous dogs legislation is not collected in the form requested.

  However, during 1992, 1993 and 1994, a total of 781 people were convicted either of offences under section 1 of the 1991 Act or of aggravated offences under section 3. In each of these cases, the court would have had no option but to order the destruction of the dog concerned. The figure quoted is thus likely to be close to the actual number of dogs put down under the Act over that period.

  Corresponding figures for 1995 are likely to be available in the autumn.

  Crime Control (International Co-operation)
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in what international research and co-operation, his Department has been involved concerning the introduction of new technologies to combat crime; and if he will make a statement. [9889]

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 22 January 1996]: The Home Office police scientific development branch has memoranda of understanding with the Dutch Ministry of Justice, the Bundeskriminalamt in Germany and the Office of National Drug Control Policy in the United States of America with a view to collaborating in the research, development, evaluation and operational use of law enforcement technologies. Further MOUs are under discussion with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the Federal Bureau of Investigation's Drug Enforcement Administration and the New South Wales police. PSDB is also a member of the working group on international technology support and participates in numerous international specialist crime-related conferences. My Department is also working with the European Committee for Standardisation to develop a European standard for vehicle tracking devices.

  Closed Circuit Television
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will place in the Library all information held by his Department concerning the effectiveness of installed closed circuit television on preventing crime; and if he will make a statement. [9890]

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 22 January 1996]: My Department has published a number of research papers looking at various aspects of closed circuit television effectiveness as part of its series of crime prevention unit papers and the successor series of crime detection and prevention papers. The most recent of these—published
  120
  on 29 December 1995—is paper No. 68—"CCTV in Town Centres: Three Case Studies". Copies of all these papers are held in the Library.

  Mr. Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the total central Government expenditure to date on crime prevention closed circuit television schemes; and if he will make a statement. [9891]

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 22 January 1996]: Approximately £800,000 has been allocated to 56 crime prevention projects featuring closed circuit television since 1989 under the safer cities programme. In addition, £5 million was awarded to 106 CCTV schemes in last year's CCTV challenge competition. The current CCTV challenge competition will provide a further £15 million for CCTV in 1996–97. Information about CCTV projects funded by other Government programmes is not collected centrally.

  National DNA Database
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in what international co-operation and research the United Kingdom Government have been involved concerning the operation of a national DNA database; and if he will make a statement. [9892]

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 22 January 1996]: Responsibility for this matter has been delegated to the Director General of the Forensic Science Service, who has been asked to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Dr. Janet Anderson to Mr. Alex Carlile, dated 23 January 1996:
  You recently tabled a Parliamentary Question about international co-operation and research concerning the operation of the National DNA Database. As you know, the arrangement now is that the Chief Executive of an Executive Agency, with the agreement of the Minister, replies to Members of Parliament on operational matters. I am therefore replying on behalf of the Forensic Science Service.
  The National DNA Database was launched in April 1995. The DNA technique used for the Database, Short Tandem Repeats (STRs)., was pioneered and developed by the Forensic Science Service (FSS). Following extensive peer review, a test system using STRs was successfully introduced into casework. The technique was chosen for the Database after a pilot study commissioned by the Home Office. The FSS work on STRs is now being taken forward internationally and I have set out some details below.
  FSS has engendered and maintained close contacts throughout the world. It was at the forefront of the foundation of the European DNA Profiling Group (EDNAP) whose members now include representatives from virtually all European countries. The work of EDNAP is focused on STRs. The FSS takes a leading role in the direction fo forensic testing in Europe through this group orchestrating collaborative trials and studies. This in turn helps to enrich the FSS research programme.
  FSS Scientists are regular guest lecturers in North America, Australia and Asia. These talks help to assure that their work is subjected to the widest possible peer review. It is a measure of the quality of the most recent advances, which have tended toward simultaneous analysis of highly discriminating tests, that the philosophy and indeed the particular test systems have been adopted by countries throughout the world.

  Mr. Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the total cost of launching and operating the national DNA database; and if he will make a statement. [9893]
  121
  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 22 January 1996]: The total cost of launching the national DNA database and the cost of its first year of operation, 1995–96, are forecast to be £3.2 million.

  Crime (Retail Premises)
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures are in place to reduce crime against retail premises; and if he will make a statement. [10244]

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 22 January 1996]: There are many measures in place to reduce retail crime. The retail action group, an associate group of the Home Office crime prevention agency board, has produced booklets for retailers on preventing burglary, robbery, and violence to staff; further guidance on the prevention of customer theft, and external fraud, and on making an arrest will be published later this year. The group is also looking at ways of identifying and promulgating best practice, and considering the uses of technology in crime prevention.

  The use of closed circuit television can make a significant contribution to reducing crime against retail premises, especially when it forms part of a package of crime prevention measures. The Home Office has helped to spread the use of CCTV through the publication of guidance on its use, and through last year's CCTV challenge competition in which the majority of successful bids were from partnerships which wished to install security cameras in shopping centres and high streets in town centres around the country. A further CCTV competition in which £15 million will be available is to be held this year, and it is likely that shopping areas will again be major beneficiaries.

  The British Retail Consortium is making a valuable contribution through the programme of work being pursued by the retail crime initiative. This initiative, which aims to develop the retail perspective in inter-agency crime prevention initiatives, is an important and valuable way of raising the general awareness of retail and town centre crime and of encouraging retailers to work together to beat crime.

  The projects carried forward by local partnerships, business and shop watch schemes, ring round schemes, police advice on the part that building design can play in preventing crime, as well as the numerous individual police force initiatives being pursued across the country all contribute to retail crime prevention. The safer cities programme has also funded a number of schemes aimed at improving the security of retail premises.

  The recently published Home Office commercial victimisation survey singles out for the first time the effect of crime on commercial victims, and we are continuing to analyse the data collected so that retailers, the police and others can target their crime prevention initiatives to best effect.

  The Home Office was represented on the Health and Safety Executive committee which last year published guidance for employers on the prevention of violence to retail staff in the workplace; and we also contributed to
  122
  the funding of a non-profit-making video for retailers on the prevention of customer theft, which was produced by Compass Vision Ltd.

  Party Conferences (Policing Costs)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what were the policing costs associated with the annual conferences of the(a) Liberal Democrats, (b) Conservative and (c) Labour parties; and what amounts were claimed by each party from central funds for security costs. [10246]

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 22 January 1996]: I understand from the forces involved that the latest estimated additional costs of policing the 1995 party conferences are:

  (a) Liberal Democrats (Strathclyde Police)—Nil

  (b) Conservative (Lancashire Constabulary)—£1 million

  (c) Labour (Sussex Police)—£29.029

  Finalised claims for security costs incurred by the political parties at these conferences have not yet been received.

  Rough Sleepers
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what co-ordinated action police forces are taking to provide adequate mechanisms for rough sleepers and similar vulnerable people to report physical attacks. [9971]

  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 22 January 1996]: The Government's consultation paper "Rough Sleepers Initiative: Future Plans" makes it clear that the police aim to provide the same quality of service to the homeless as to all other victims of crime, and in doing so should have regard to the special needs and vulnerability of homeless people. It is for individual chief officers, though, to decide the most suitable approach locally.

  Mobile Phones
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what costs his Department and executive agencies have incurred as a result of withdrawing from contracts under which mobile phones are provided; and if he will list the companies concerned. [9751]

  Mr. Howard
  [holding answer 17 January 1996]: Arrangements for the procurement of mobile telephones in my Department are devolved to executive agencies and dispersed business units and no central records are kept. I am aware of agreements for four individual mobile telephones which have been terminated. The cost to my Department was about £145. The companies involved were Cellcom and People's Phone.

  Killings and Woundings (Toxteth)
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) killings and (b) woundings have taken place in Toxteth over the past year to the most recent available date; and if he will make a statement. [10467]
  123
  Mr. Maclean
  [holding answer 22 January 1996]: This information is not collected centrally.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much has been spent on external consultants in the tendering process of the private finance initiative in each year since its introduction(a) in real terms and (b) in cash terms disaggregated by (i) legal fees, (ii) publicity costs, (iii) accountancy fees and (iv) management consultancy fees. [10955]

  Mr. Howard
  [holding answer 22 January 1996]: The amount spent on external consultants in the tendering process since the introduction of private finance initiative is as follows:

  (a) In real terms: applying the GDP deflator to the cash totals in (b) below, costs are equivalent (1995–96 prices) to:
  124

  £

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  27,740

  421,170

  1,381,448

  (b) In cash terms:

  Legal fees

  4,500

  186,450

  537,128

  Publicity costs

  —

  —

  —

  Accountancy fees

  22,000

  135,834

  260,901

  Management consultancy

  —

  87,616

  583,419

  Totals

  26,500

  409,900

  1,381,448

  Mr. Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what have been the running costs relating to the tendering process of the private finance initiative in each year since its introduction(a) in real terms and (b) in cash terms disaggregated by (i) staff costs, (ii) information technology and (iii) other costs. [10956]

  Mr. Howard
  [holding answer 22 January 1996]: The information requested is not separately recorded.

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

  Committee on the Co-ordination and Presentation of Government Policy
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how often the Committee on the Co-ordination and Presentation of Government Policy has met. [10022]

  The Deputy Prime Minister
  "Questions of Procedure for Ministers" makes it clear that information relating to the proceedings of Cabinet or Cabinet Committees is not normally made public.

  Ministerial Responsibilities
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what changes have taken place in his responsibilities over the last four years; and what impact this has had on the running costs of his Department. [10023]

  Mr. Freeman
  The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster's ministerial responsibilities in December 1992 were as follows:The discharge on a day-to-day basis of the responsibilities of Minister for the Civil Service; overseeing progress and development of the citizens charter initiative, the next steps programme, the efficiency and effectiveness of the civil service and the market-testing programme; responsibility for the Office of Science and Technology which, in addition to responsibility for Government policy on science and technology, is responsible for the research councils; and ministerial responsibility for Her Majesty's Stationery Office.

  These responsibilities were carried out by the Cabinet Office, Office of Public Service and Science. The estimated annual running costs associated with these responsibilities in 1992–93 was £96 million.

  On 1 April 1993 financial provision for the Prime Minister's Office, the Office of Parliamentary Counsel, support to the Whips and minor other functions were transferred to the Cabinet Office "other services" vote. This reduced the OPSS annual running costs by £15.5 million.

  Cabinet Office

  £

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  Aberdeen Press and Journal

  2,132

  3,686

  2,694

  —

  —

  Ambulance UK

  —

  —

  453

  453

  —

  Andover Advertiser

  —

  —

  892

  —

  —

  Assessment

  —

  —

  2,425

  —

  —

  B A News

  —

  —

  1,152

  4,064

  —

  Banbury Guardian

  —

  —

  677

  —

  —

  Bath (and West Evening) Chronicle

  —

  497

  —

  —

  —

  Bedfordshire Times

  —

  —

  1,405

  —

  —

  Belfast Irish News

  900

  476

  1,143

  —

  —

  Belfast Telegraph

  4,777

  6,155

  5,233

  355

  —

  Birmingham Evening Mail

  —

  2,262

  3,700

  —

  —

  Bracknell News

  —

  —

  874

  —

  —

  Bournemouth Evening Echo

  —

  751

  —

  —

  —

  Braintree and Witham Times

  —

  416

  999

  —

  —

  Brighton Evening Argus

  —

  —

  2,000

  —

  —

  Bristol Evening Post

  —

  2,498

  —

  —

  —

  Bromley Borough News

  —

  371

  —

  —

  —

  Bucks Free Press

  —

  —

  972

  —

  —

  126
  On 1 April 1995 my predecessor took over responsibility for civil service pensions and civil service pay and conditions, including the senior civil service. These responsibilities were transferred by the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, following HM Treasury's fundamental expenditure review, and strengthened my civil service efficiency and effectiveness remit. The effect of these additional responsibilities serve to increase the OPSS annual running costs by some £13 million.

  The machinery of Government changes announced in July 1995 saw significant changes with responsibility for the science and technology transferring from the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to the Minister for Science and Technology, Department of Trade and Industry. At the same time, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster assumed responsibility for supporting the Deputy Prime Minister on the competitiveness agenda and for the progress and development of deregulation, transferred from the Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry. The net annual affect on running costs of these changes to my Department—now the Office of Public Service—is estimated to be a reduction of £3 million.

  On the 1 January 1996 I assumed responsibility from the Minister for the Environment and Countryside for two executive agencies—the Security Facilities Executive and the Buying Agency. The effect of this transfer on my Department's annual running costs is £29 million.

  Advertising
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what has been the expenditure of his(a) Department, (b) agencies and (c) non-departmental public bodies on newspaper advertising by title for each year since 1990–91; and what estimate he has made for 1995–96 based on expenditure to date and existing plans. [6571]

  The Deputy Prime Minister
  Details of expenditure on newspaper advertising and other promotional materials and activities by the Cabinet Office, including the Prime Minister's Office, and the Office of Public Service were as follows:
  127

  Cabinet Office

  £

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  Burnley Express

  —

  —

  603

  —

  —

  CA Magazine

  —

  —

  —

  —

  721

  Carmarthen Citizen

  —

  161

  —

  —

  —

  Carmarthen Journal

  —

  —

  516

  —

  —

  Chronicle and Echo

  —

  —

  1,076

  —

  —

  Coalville Times

  —

  —

  529

  —

  —

  Community Care

  847

  —

  2,541

  1,457

  —

  Cornishman

  —

  —

  434

  —

  —

  Courier and Advertiser (Dundee)

  1,906

  1,165

  2,499

  —

  —

  Coventry Evening Telegraph

  —

  1,127

  —

  —

  —

  Croydon Advertiser series

  —

  1,535

  1,593

  —

  —

  Daily Express

  63,510

  4,650

  24,200

  1,260

  —

  Daily Mail

  78,335

  33,520

  26,616

  53,410

  —

  Daily Mirror

  49,062

  7,800

  14,800

  41,357

  —

  Daily Post (Liverpool)

  990

  —

  1,515

  —

  —

  Daily Record

  7,000

  2,300

  4,600

  —

  —

  Daily Star

  11,700

  1,700

  6,300

  —

  –

  Daily Telegraph

  68,908

  9,545

  38,548

  19,040

  11,900

  Derby Evening Telegraph

  —

  794

  1,512

  —

  —

  Derry Journal

  —

  498

  —

  —

  —

  Dorset Evening Echo

  —

  342

  689

  —

  —

  Dumfries and Galloway Standard

  —

  —

  856

  —

  —

  East Anglian Daily Times (Ipswich)

  —

  635

  1,327

  —

  —

  East Kent Gazette

  —

  —

  547

  —

  —

  Eastbourne Herald

  —

  —

  932

  —

  —

  Eastern Daily Press (Norwich)

  —

  —

  1,467

  —

  —

  Evening Chronicle (Newcastle)

  —

  1,522

  2,189

  —

  —

  Evening Gazette (Teeside)

  —

  —

  1,465

  —

  —

  Evening Herald (Plymouth)

  —

  —

  1,159

  —

  —

  Evening Leader (Wrexham/Deeside)

  —

  —

  815

  —

  —

  Evening News (Worcester/Hereford)

  —

  633

  —

  —

  —

  Evening Standard

  —

  5,000

  8,800

  22,700

  —

  Evening Star (Ipswich)

  —

  576

  —

  —

  —

  Express and Star W Midlands/Shropshire Star

  —

  920

  5,576

  —

  —

  Federation Focus

  —

  —

  —

  —

  176

  Financial Times

  15,200

  —

  —

  1,770

  —

  Fire

  —

  995

  1,946

  2,043

  —

  Folkstone Herald/Dover Express

  —

  —

  635

  —

  —

  Gazette (South Shields)

  —

  —

  787

  —

  —

  General Practitioner

  —

  —

  4,447

  2,329

  —

  Glasgow Evening Times

  —

  1,987

  —

  —

  —

  Gloucester Citizen

  —

  436

  895

  —

  —

  Gloucestershire Echo

  —

  —

  885

  —

  —

  Governors News

  —

  —

  —

  —

  418

  Guardian

  36,600

  15,398

  8,664

  15,369

  —

  Hamilton Advertiser

  —

  869

  —

  —

  —

  Health Service Journal

  2,046

  1,739

  4,067

  3,357

  —

  Herald Glasgow

  2,850

  5,262

  3,591

  —

  —

  Hinckley and Bosworth

  —

  —

  613

  —

  —

  Hinckley Times

  —

  —

  555

  —

  —

  Housing Associations Weekly

  —

  —

  —

  —

  407

  In Attendance

  —

  —

  357

  —

  —

  Independent

  26,250

  11,148

  7,068

  435

  —

  Independent on Sunday

  10,189

  —

  3,648

  450

  —

  Irish News

  —

  1,050

  1,143

  —

  —

  Inside Housing

  —

  —

  —

  —

  473

  Journal (Newcastle)

  —

  —

  1,499

  —

  —

  Junior Education

  —

  —

  900

  1,980

  —

  Kent Messenger

  —

  —

  2,408

  —

  —

  Kent Today

  —

  1,254

  —

  —

  —

  Lancashire Evening Post

  —

  1,056

  —

  —

  —

  Leek Post and Times

  —

  —

  371

  —

  —

  Leicester Herald and Post

  —

  —

  715

  —

  —

  Leicester Link

  —

  —

  2,528

  —

  —

  Leicester Mail series

  —

  —

  3,006

  —

  —

  Leicester Mercury

  —

  1,480

  5,687

  —

  —

  Liverpool Echo

  —

  1,756

  —

  —

  —

  Local Government Chronicle

  —

  1,772

  3,389

  2,912

  1,482

  Londonderry Sentinel

  —

  414

  —

  —

  —

  128 129

  Cabinet Office

  £

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  Loughborough Echo

  —

  —

  1,189

  —

  —

  Loughborough Herald and Post

  —

  —

  818

  —

  —

  Luton and Dunstable Herald and Post

  —

  600

  —

  —

  —

  Lynn News

  —

  —

  1,252

  —

  —

  Mail on Sunday

  20,500

  7,020

  28,500

  2,100

  —

  Managing Schools Today

  —

  —

  —

  —

  266

  Manchester Evening News

  —

  —

  6,344

  —

  —

  Market Harborough Mail

  —

  —

  719

  —

  —

  Marketing

  —

  —

  —

  720

  —

  Melton Times

  —

  —

  1,515

  —

  —

  Municipal Journal

  —

  1,580

  2,244

  2,541

  —

  Museums Journal

  —

  —

  —

  741

  —

  News Letter—Ulster

  1,088

  1,684

  2,715

  —

  —

  News of the World

  10,000

  34,280

  10,500

  3,750

  —

  Nottingham Evening Post

  —

  2,342

  1,258

  —

  —

  Nursing Times

  —

  —

  2,236

  2,346

  —

  Observer

  11,600

  1,906

  4,788

  630

  —

  On the Bell

  —

  —

  357

  —

  —

  P S Magazine

  —

  —

  476

  —

  —

  The People

  5,500

  11,200

  5,400

  2,079

  —

  Peterborough Evening Telegraph

  —

  625

  —

  —

  —

  Police Review

  476

  1,032

  1,620

  1,440

  —

  Portsmouth—The News

  —

  —

  1,862

  —

  —

  Practice Manager

  —

  —

  424

  424

  —

  Prison Service News

  —

  —

  1,604

  —

  —

  Private Education

  —

  —

  —

  371

  Public Sector Commercial Management

  —

  971

  —

  —

  —

  Public Service and Local Government News

  —

  953

  —

  —

  —

  Rail News

  —

  —

  1,747

  —

  —

  Rutland and Stamford Mercury

  —

  —

  1,087

  —

  —

  South Wales Evening Post

  910

  1,058

  1,333

  —

  —

  Salisbury Journal

  —

  451

  —

  —

  —

  Scarborough Evening News

  —

  481

  —

  —

  —

  Scotland On Sunday

  1,903

  451

  —

  —

  —

  Scotsman (Edinburgh)

  5,469

  4,371

  3,163

  430

  —

  Solihull News Series

  —

  265

  —

  —

  —

  Somerset County Gazette

  —

  552

  —

  —

  —

  South Wales Argus

  738

  638

  944

  —

  —

  South Wales Echo

  1,574

  3,412

  1,764

  —

  —

  Southern Evening Echo

  —

  —

  1,815

  —

  —

  Southern Reporter

  —

  773

  —

  —

  —

  Stafford Newsletter

  —

  —

  1,059

  —

  —

  Staines Informer

  —

  —

  929

  —

  —

  Sun

  73,800

  30,000

  32,250

  92,950

  —

  Sunday Express

  13,000

  27,470

  27,500

  1,740

  —

  Sunday Life (Belfast)

  856

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Sunday Mail (Glasgow)

  2,000

  —

  2,500

  —

  —

  Sunday Mirror

  7,600

  35,300

  7,800

  —

  —

  Sunday News

  700

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Sunday Post

  8,329

  —

  7,200

  —

  —

  Sunday Telegraph

  18,446

  4,590

  28,202

  —

  —

  Sunday Times

  39,370

  29,200

  39,294

  2,484

  —

  Sunday World (Northern Ireland)

  1,152

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Surrey Advertiser Group

  —

  —

  1,165

  —

  —

  Teacher

  —

  —

  —

  —

  858

  Tempo

  —

  —

  953

  2,171

  —

  This Caring Business

  —

  —

  1,791

  —

  —

  Times

  22,556

  9,790

  9,940

  18,804

  6,000

  Times Educational Supplement

  2,162

  8,200

  5,057

  5,018

  546

  Times Higher Educational Supplement

  4,324

  —

  2,146

  3,097

  461

  Today

  3,150

  2,899

  5,450

  480

  —

  Training and Enterprise Journal

  —

  —

  —

  —

  445

  Transport Journal

  —

  856

  847

  —

  —

  TV Times

  900

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Tyrone Constitution

  —

  370

  —

  —

  —

  Viewpoint

  —

  —

  397

  —

  —

  Voluntary Housing

  —

  —

  —

  —

  407

  Wales on Sunday

  132

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Water and Waste Treatment

  —

  970

  —

  —

  —

  130 131

  Cabinet Office

  £

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  Water Bulletin

  —

  1,690

  847

  —

  —

  Welwyn and Hatfield Times

  —

  —

  2,753

  —

  —

  West Briton

  —

  520

  —

  —

  —

  Western Mail

  249

  1,550

  —

  304

  –

  Western Morning News

  —

  760

  —

  —

  —

  West Lancashire Evening Gazette

  —

  —

  1,498

  —

  —

  Western Mail

  —

  —

  2,223

  —

  —

  Wrexham Leader (Weekly)

  63

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Yorkshire Post

  —

  1,510

  —

  —

  —

  641,769

  368,961

  507,602

  318,990

  24,931

  1991

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  HMSO (a)

  556,000

  645,000

  1,705,000

  1,905,000

  2,500,000

  1. The figures for the Cabinet Office excludes expenditure by the Office of the Prime Minister, which was the subject of a separate Answer by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.

  2. Cabinet Office expenditure is virtually all on the Citizen's Charter.

  3. Expenditure by title excludes agency or COI costs.

  4. There has been no expenditure on newspaper advertising by the Department's agencies, other than for the purposes of recruitment.

  5. 1995–96 figures are actual expenditure to end-November.

  6. Estimates for 1995–96 are not available. Newspaper advertising is treated for budgeting purposes as part of advertising in all its forms.

  7. HMSO figures are based on its year of accounting, which is January to December, and encompass all forms of advertising including newspaper advertising. The advertising is used to promote sales of HMSO books, and other products and services. Much of this is placed in trade journals, but more general periodicals and newspapers are also used.

  8. The Cabinet Office does not have any NDPBs.

  Information Technology
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if Government Departments may sell spare information technology capacities to other Departments; and if he will make a statement. [10680]

  Mr. Willetts
  Computer systems need to be installed with sufficient capacity to meet peak work loads and, as a consequence, Departments may have spare processing capacity outside these peak periods.

  Departments are encouraged to make the most efficient and effective use of their information technology resources. Where economic quantities of spare computing capacity can be identified, this may be sold to other Department so long as the normal technical, security and financial controls are met.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (1) how much has been spent on external consultants in the tendering process of the private finance initiative in each year since its introduction(a) in real terms and (b) in cash terms disaggregated by (i) legal fees, (ii) publicity costs, (iii) accountancy fees and (iv) management consultancy fees; [10957]

  (2) what have been the running costs relating to the tendering process of the private finance initiative in each year since its introduction (a) in real terms and (b) in cash terms disaggregated by (i) staff costs, (ii) information technology and (iii) other costs. [10958]

  Mr. Willetts
  As yet, nil.

  Mobile Phones
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many of the mobile phones which have 132
  been supplied to his Department in each of the last eight years have been cloned; and on what dates. [11009]

  Mr. Willetts
  In the Cabinet Office the following phones were cloned:

  Four telephones in January 1994;

  One telephone in October 1995 and,

  One telephone in June 1995.

  None of the mobile phones purchased by the Central Office of Information in the last eight years has been cloned.

  Her Majesty's Stationery Office does not hold this information centrally and it could be produced only at disproportionate cost.

NATIONAL HERITAGE

  Historic Monuments
  Mr. Peter Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for National Heritage what is the outcome of the prior options stage of the financial management and policy review of the Royal Commission on the historical monuments of England; and if she will make a statement. [11819]

  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  The overall conclusion of the prior options report was that maintaining the central functions of the royal commission is a necessary national task, and that the RCHME is best placed to carry out this work. I have accepted this recommendation and confirm that the RCHME will continue to carry out its role as the national body of survey and record of the historic environment, as defined in its royal warrant. A copy of the prior options report has been placed in the Library of the House.
  133
  The report also looked at the relationship between the RCHME and other heritage bodies working in the field and recommended that there was scope for greater co-operation between RCHME and English Heritage, and for a further clarification of their respective roles with regard to survey work. Discussions are taking place between the two bodies to give effect to these recommendations.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Furniture Inventory
  Mr. Robert Banks
  To ask the Chairman of the Accommodation and Works Committee what progress has been made with compiling a comprehensive inventory of the furniture in the Palace of Westminster; and if he will make a statement. [10839]

  Mr. Ray Powell
  The inventory of historic furniture was completed in late 1995. More than 7,500 pieces were identified on the parliamentary estate. These were numbered and photographed and the descriptions recorded on a computer database. The inventory is currently being edited and will provide an important tool for the management and conservation of these valuable assets.

TREASURY

  Official Hospitality
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much was spent on official hospitality by agencies associated with his Department in 1993–94, 1994–95 and projected for 1995–96. [9089]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  [holding answer 15 January 1996]: Expenditure by agencies associated with Her Majesty's Treasury on official hospitality is included in the running costs published for each agency.

  Mr. Banks
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 13 December,Official Report, column 636, on hospitality spending by his Department in 1994–95 and 1995–96, if the figures included spending by his Department's agencies. [9090]

  Mrs. Knight
  [holding answer 15 January 1996]: No. The figures were for the central Treasury only.

  Steam-powered Vehicles
  Mr. Jack Thompson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many steam-powered road vehicles over 25 years old were liable for road tax in the financial years 1993–94, 1994–95 and the first six months of the financial year 1995–96. [10627]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  There were 340 steam-propelled vehicles over 25 years old liable for road tax at the end of 1994, the only year for which figures are currently available.

  Mr. Thompson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much was raised from road tax sources on steam-powered vehicles over 25 years old in the 134
  financial years 1993–94, 1994–95 and the first six months of the financial year 1995–96. [10625]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  Figures are currently available only for calendar year 1994. Total revenue raised in 1994 for steam-powered vehicles over 25 years old was £15,000.

  Regional Agents
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the cities in which regional agents who monitor the economy for the Bank of England are based in(a) England, (b) Scotland and (c) Wales. [10429]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  The Bank has regional agents in Birmingham, Bristol, Leeds, Liverpool, Manchester, Newcastle and Winchester. There is additionally an agent in London, covering the south-east. In Scotland there is an agent in Glasgow. There is no agent in Wales. The Bank is currently reviewing its agencies, with a view to enhancing their coverage and profile in the regions.

  Part-time Employment
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the number of part-time employment posts in the north-west region in each of the past three years. [10302]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  The information requested is shown in the following table:

  Part-time employees—north-west: September

  Year

  Level

  1993

  634,000

  1994

  634,000

  1995

  648,000

  Source:

  CSO.

  Cash Machines
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what discussions he has had with the banking industry over the introduction of vein scanning in cash machines. [10630]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  None, although from time to time my officials discuss with the industry ways of reducing fraud.

  Scott Inquiry
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 16 January 1995,Official Report, column 527, who provided external legal advice to his Department's Ministers in relation to the Scott inquiry. [10875]

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  The names of individuals receiving external legal advice at public expense, and of their legal advisers, are confidential to them.

  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what discussions staff employed by Her Majesty's Customs and Excise in relation to the Scott
  135
  inquiry have had on matters related to the Scott inquiry with persons (a) employed by and (b) working as consultants for Conservative central office; and what subjects were discussed. [10991]

  Mr. Clarke
  [holding answer 22 January 1996]: Staff employed by Her Majesty's Customs and Excise in relation to the Scott inquiry have had no discussions with persons employed by or working as consultants for Conservative central office.

  Mr. Cook
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the responsibilities of the staff employed by Her Majesty's Customs and Excise in relation to the Scott inquiry. [10990]

  Mr. Clarke
  [holding answer 22 January 1996]: The responsibilities of staff in Her Majesty's Customs and Excise employed on matters relating to the Scott inquiry are to provide Ministers and officials with advice on matters arising from the inquiry, and to liaise with the inquiry.

  Biodiesel
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to encourage the production of biodiesel fuel; and if he will make a statement. [11091]

  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  I have no such plans. The environmental case for biodiesel has not been established, although the Government continue to fund research in this area.

  Student Loans
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 16 January,Official Report, column 528, on the postponement of the introduction of private loans, when he plans to conclude his consideration. [10983]

  Mr. Waldegrave
  [holding answer 22 January 1996]: In due course.

  Eurotunnel
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations the Government have received from Eurotunnel in relation to its debt; what requests were contained in those representations; and what response he has made. [10980]

  Mr. Waldegrave
  [holding answer 22 January 1996]: The Government have received representations from Eurotunnel on a number of issues, including the company's current financial difficulties.

  It has been made clear to the company that any financial restructuring of Eurotunnel is a matter for the company to resolve in discussion with its bankers, and without Government intervention. From the start, it was always envisaged that the channel tunnel would be an entirely private sector project and that the concessionaries would have no recourse to Government funds or guarantees of a commercial nature. That remains the position.

  Mobile phones
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many of the mobile phones which have 136
  been supplied to his Department in each of the last five years have been cloned; and on what dates. [11012]

  Mrs. Angela Knight
  A total of three mobile phones have been cloned during the last five years. Two of these have been cloned three times and the other once. The dates are:

  (1) 15–17 November 1994, 21–22 April 1995 and 4–6 May 1995.

  (2) 11–12 March 1995, 21 April 1995 and 17–18 September 1995.

  (3) 24–26 October 1995.

  Income Tax Relief
  Mr. Hutton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the full year yield of restricting income tax relief available at the 40 per cent. marginal rate to(a) £2,000, (b) £3,000, (c) £4,000, (d) £6,000 and (e) £8,000 (i) including and (ii) excluding profit-related pay giving in each case the number of people affected. [11003]

  Mr. Jack
  Available information was given in my answer to the hon. Member for York (Mr. Bayley) on 17 January 1996,Official Report, column 607.

DEFENCE

  Royal Squadron
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on how many occasions since 8 December 1995 aircraft of the Royal Squadron were used by members of the royal family for private travel; and if he will list in each case the point of departure of the aircraft and the destination, the sum which was reimbursed and the members of the royal family involved. [10649]

  Mr. Soames
  Since 8 December 1995 there have been two occasions when aircraft of No. 32 (The Royal) Squadron have been used by members of the royal family for private travel. The details of these flights, including the sums to be reimbursed to the Ministry of Defence by the royal households, are as follows:

  Departure Point

  Destination

  Charge £

  Members of royal family

  Her Majesty The Queen

  HRH The Duke of

  Blackpool

  London

  1,186.67

  Edinburgh

  HRH The Prince of

  Wales

  Prince William

  Mildenhall

  Zurich

  1,584.00

  Prince Henry

  Mr. David Hart
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will set those qualifications held by Mr. David Hart which led to his employment as a special adviser. [11086]

  Mr. Portillo
  I refer the hon. Member to the oral answer given to him by my hon. Friend the Minister of
  137
  State for Defence Procurement on 9 January 1996, Official Report, column 3.

  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if Mr. David Hart has an office in the Department. [11082]

  Mr. Portillo
  No.

  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence of which projects in the Department Mr. David Hart has direct control; and in which areas of work he has responsibility. [11081]

  Mr. Portillo
  None.

  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many meetings Mr. David Hart has had with foreign defence equipment suppliers since he was appointed; [11085]

  (2) how many meetings Mr. David Hart has had with British defence equipment suppliers since he was appointed as a special adviser. [11165]

  Mr. Portillo
  Since David Hart was appointed as an independent adviser my Department has not maintained a record of such meetings.

  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what interests Mr. David Hart has declared in respect of consultants(a) currently working for his Department and (b) committed to work for his Department. [11083]

  Mr. Portillo
  None.

  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many departmental staff, of which grades, work directly for Mr. David Hart. [11080]

  Mr. Portillo
  None.

  Consultancy Agreements
  Mr. Betts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what consultancy agreements his Department has entered into for(a) the current and (b) future financial years on (i) efficiency studies, (ii) value for money studies, (iii) financial control systems and (iv) other related matters; and in each case what are the costs (1) now committed and (2) estimated to be incurred. [11084]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  Budget holders throughout the Ministry of Defence have delegated authority to engage external advisers, on a paid consultancy basis or otherwise, to conduct independent reviews of aspects of the Department's work. Information on such studies is not collected centrally, or in the format required, and the details could therefore be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Marine Services
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement concerning the result of the market test of the marine services business. [10509]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  The market test of the marine services business has reached the stage of final tender evaluation. The select of the successful bidder will be taken following this evaluation and will be announced as soon as possible thereafter.

  Service Women (Pregnancy)
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the compensation payments made to pregnant service women dismissed between 1979 and 1990 by rank and the service in which they served. [11329]

  Mr. Soames
  Some 5,000 compensation payments averaging under £11,000 each have been made to service women discharged on pregnancy between 1978 and 1990. My noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State will write to the hon. Member with a list of the individual payments which have been made to date, broken down by service, but details of the rank relating to each payment could be provided only at disproportionate cost. A copy of the letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Dr. Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what distinction his Department makes in fitness standard requirements between service women returning to work following a period of maternity leave and female service personnel who have not been pregnant. [11326]

  Mr. Soames
  Women who return to duty following a period of maternity leave are, in common with other female personnel, normally expected to meet the level of fitness necessary to carry out their duties. However, in accordance with health and safety regulations, special considerations apply to pregnant women, women who have recently given birth, and breast-feeding mothers. It is possible, therefore, that some women returning to duty from maternity leave may be temporarily placed in a reduced medical category which necessitates their employment on restricted duties for a period of time.

  Dr. Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the fitness requirements and testing applied to service women returning to work following a period of maternity leave; and how many such service women have failed these tests. [11324]

  Mr. Soames
  Service women returning to duty following maternity leave undergo a medical examination to confirm that they are fit to return to duty. The ability of a service woman to return to her normal duties will be assessed in the light of the medical examination. If necessary, a woman returning to work after a period of maternity leave will be temporarily placed on restricted duties. No data are available centrally in respect of the number of women who fail to meet the medical standards necessary for them to resume their normal duties.

  Dr. Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many female service personnel gave up children for adoption in each of the years from 1978 to 1990; and what was his Department's policy towards such personnel during this period. [11327]

  Mr. Soames
  Information in respect of the numbers of women who gave up children for adoption in each of the years from 1978 to 1990 is not held centrally. During this period, pregnant service women were compulsorily discharged from the armed forces. Some women may have decided to have their child adopted prior to applying to re-enter the armed forces and any application for re-entry would have been treated in the same way as all other applications. Any decision by a serving mother to
  139
  give up her child for adoption is a private matter for the woman concerned.

  Dr. Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many service women have returned to work following a period of maternity leave in each of the years since maternity leave became available. [11325]

  Mr. Soames
  My noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State will write to the hon. Member and a copy of his letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Equal Treatment Directive
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if his Department has implemented article 7 of the equal treatment directive. [11328]

  Mr. Soames
  Yes.

  Industrial Tribunal Orders
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what occasions he has failed to comply with orders from industrial tribunals within the time prescribed by the industrial tribunal. [11330]

  Mr. Soames
  The information requested is not held centrally, but it is my Department's practice to comply wherever possible with all such orders, once they have been received.

  Ministerial Visits (Kuwait)
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he last visited Kuwait; what issues were discussed; when the visit was arranged; and if he will make a statement. [11322]

  Mr. Portillo
  I had been planning to visit Kuwait for some time and was able to do so at short notice on 13 January. I discussed a range of bilateral issues, including regional security, defence co-operation and the supply of defence equipment.

  Conventionally Armed Stand-off Missile
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the desirability of a merger of British and American projects to meet a requirement for a conventionally armed stand-off missile. [11321]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  There have been discussions with several countries with a similar requirement to our own for a conventionally armed stand-off missile to assess the potential for co-operation. The outcome of these discussions will be taken into account during our assessment.

  Portland Naval Base
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if his Department is involved in the search for ordnance within the waters of the former Portland naval base; and if he will make a statement. [11323]

  Mr. Soames
  In anticipation of the closure of the naval base on 31 March 1996. Portland harbour is being searched for the purpose of safely removing any ordnance 140
  which may exist. This is in accordance with MOD policy to clear surplus sites of ordnance before disposal. The Royal Navy is clearing the harbour floor and an area outside the harbour in areas deeper than 10 m. A MOD-approved specialist contract diving company is clearing areas inside the harbour of less than 10 m depth up to the shoreline. Only a small quantity of live but stable ordnance has been found and is being safely disposed of by Navy ordnance disposal specialists.

  Franco-German Armaments Agency
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent discussions he has had with his French and German counterparts concerning British participation in the Franco-German armaments agency. [10497]

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  [holding answer 22 January 1996]: The Secretary of State met his German counterpart on 27 November 1995, and his French counterpart on 30 October 1995, on which occasions helpful discussions took place with regard to possible UK participation in the Franco-German armaments agency. Also I met my German counterpart on 18 January 1996 and had constructive discussion on this issue.

PRIME MINISTER

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister what assessment he has made as to the number of asylum seekers who are abusing their position in the United Kingdom. [11136]

  The Prime Minister
  The level of abuse of the asylum procedures is very high. Last year only 5 per cent. of asylum applicants were granted refugee status under the 1951 United Nations convention on refugees and 79 per cent. of applicants were refused outright. The great majority of Home Office asylum decisions are upheld on appeal by independent adjudicators; last year, only 3 per cent. of such appeals were allowed. The Government are taking measures across a broad front to deter abusive asylum claims and to strengthen the procedures for determining applications.

  Opposition Policies
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister what arrangements have been made for the retention of assessments drawn up of Opposition policies in advance of general elections; and what facilities for the public inspection of these records are available. [10982]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 22 January 1996]: Departments are asked from time to time, under Governments of any party, to provide factual costings of the policies of the Opposition. Such costings form part of departmental files and are not subject to any special access arrangements.

  Political Honours Scrutiny Committee
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Prime Minister who are the members of the Political Honours Scrutiny Committee; when they were appointed and by whom; and what is the term of their appointment. [11100]

  The Prime Minister
  The current members, my right hon. and noble Friend Lord Pym, the right hon. Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos and the right hon. Lord Thomson of Monifieth, were appointed by Order in Council on 9 November 1992. They were appointed on my advice following consultations with the right hon. Members for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) and for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown). The Order in Council provides that the committee is appointed for the duration of office of the present Government.

  2001 Census
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will require the 2001 census to ascertain proficiency in(a) all indigenous languages of the United Kingdom and (b) in major European Community languages. [8783]

  The Prime Minister
  No final proposals will be made until 1998 in the light of cases made for all potential questions. However, little need has been stated for information from the census on proficiency in European Community languages and it seems unlikely that there will be a question about this. Some needs have been expressed for extensions to the questions on indigenous languages asked in Wales and Scotland in the 1991 census, and these are being considered.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will require the 2001 census to ascertain the extent of proficiency in the Welsh language in all nations of the United Kingdom. [8784]

  The Prime Minister
  The matter is under consideration. No final proposals will be made until 1998 in the light of the cases made for all potential questions.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will establish an office in Wales to oversee the conduct of the 2001 census. [8785]

  The Prime Minister
  By statute it is the duty of the Registrar General to make the arrangements for taking the census throughout England and Wales. The Registrar General is, and will be, working closely with the Welsh Office in planning and co-ordinating the proposed 2001 census.

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will require the 2001 census forms in Wales to be published in a bilingual Welsh-English form. [8786]

  The Prime Minister
  In the 1991 census in Wales, bilingual English-Welsh publicity material was distributed and the census form itself was available in Welsh as well as in English. The acceptability, effectiveness and practicability of a bilingual census form are under consideration.

  Royal Yacht Britannia
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Prime Minister if Her Majesty's Government have yet decided the future of HMY Britannia after decommissioning in 1997; whether any replacement vessel is to be acquired; and if he will make a statement. [9305]

  The Prime Minister
  A number of suggestions have been made about the future of HMY Britannia and these are being considered. The Government are also considering the question of whether to replace Britannia. An announcement will be made in due course.

  Engagements
  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 23 January. [9471]

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

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Executive Agencies
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what action heads of his Department's executive agencies are taking to safeguard the provisions of pre-retirement courses in the event of such agencies seeking to make economies; and if he will make a statement. [9138]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  The chief executives of the following executive agencies will respond direct to the hon. Member—Companies House, the Insolvency Service, the Laboratory of the Government Chemist, the National Weights and Measures Laboratory, the Patent Office and the Radiocommunications Agency.

  Letter from P. R. S. Hartnack to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 23 January 1996:
  I am replying in relation to the Patent Office to your Parliamentary Question to the President of the Board of Trade about pre-retirement courses. The Personnel Section of the Patent Office runs such courses for staff who are about to retire and I can confirm that we will continue to provide them for our staff in the future.

  Letter from Jim Norton to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 23 January 1996:
  The President of the Board of Trade has asked me to respond to your Parliamentary Question.
  I can confirm that the Radiocommunications Agency will continue to provide appropriate training to help those staff that are preparing for retirement.

  Letter from Peter Joyce to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 23 January 1996:
  The President of the Board of Trade has asked me to reply to your question about the action being taken to safeguard the provision of pre-retirement courses.
  The Insolvency Service currently uses the courses run by the Department of Trade and Industry's Personnel Training Services Consortium. About a year before expected retirement the individual members of staff are invited to attend a course: The Service pays for the individual and his/her partner to attend.
  The Service expects to continue the provision of such courses.
  143
  Letter from Seton Bennett to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 23 January 1996:
  The President of the Board of Trade has asked me to reply on behalf of the National Weights and Measures Laboratory to your question about the provision of pre-retirement courses.
  There are no changes planned and this Agency will continue to provide pre-retirement courses.

  Letter from R. D. Worswick to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 12 January 1996:
  I have been asked to answer with respect to the Laboratory of the Government Chemist your question to the President of the Board of Trade number 9138 asking what action heads of executive agencies are taking to safeguard the provision of pre-retirement courses in the event of such agencies seeking to make economies.
  The Laboratory of the Government Chemist continues to operate a policy of offering staff approaching retirement age the opportunity to attend a pre-retirement course.

  Letter from David Durham to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 23 January 1996:
  You have recently tabled a written Parliamentary Question asking what action the Department of Trade aid Industry's Executive Agencies are taking to safeguard the provision of pre-retirement courses. I have been asked to reply as Chief Executive of Companies House Executive Agency.
  Companies House initiated its own programme of pre-retirement courses in March 1990; prior to this the service was provided by the Department's Training Division. An invitation to attend the training is issued to every member of staff and their partner across all sites twelve months before they reach the age of 60. This invitation is also extended to any member of staff who takes up the option of early retirement.
  The course is a two day event. It is delivered by local external speakers who tailor their material on the financial, social and personal aspects of retirement to the needs of the course members. So far 92 staff have attended the training. We will continue to provide this service as part of our commitment to the welfare of our staff.
  This reply also takes account of your amended question.

  Telecommunications Services
  Mr. Shaw
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what assessment he has made of the relative levels of penetration of integrated services data network lines in Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries. [10425]

  Mr. Ian Taylor
  The OECD compiles a table representing the level of penetration of OECD lines in member countries which it amends and makes available to my Department regularly. I will arrange for a copy of the most recent survey, 1995, to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Labour Statistics
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many people in full-time employment in the United Kingdom earn less than the minimum hourly wage rates in each country of the European Union. [10637]

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  Information in the form requested can be obtained only at disproportionate cost. However, the number of full- time employees in Great 144
  Britain earning less than the minimum hourly wage rates in those European Union countries which have a statutory national minimum wage is contained in the following table:

  National minimum hourly wage

  Number of full-time workers in Great Britain earning less than the minimum rate2

  Country

  £ Sterling equivalent1

  Millions

  Belgium

  5.46

  6.19

  France

  4.84

  4.78

  Greece

  1.82

  0.27

  Luxembourg

  5.51

  6.31

  Netherlands

  5.04

  5.24

  Portugal

  1.30

  0.15

  Spain

  2.00

  0.29

  1Market exchange rates of 17 January 1996 were used.

  2Derived from the Labour Force Survey—Summer 1995.

  Business and Innovation Centre
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade how many universities in the United Kingdom have participated in the development of a business and innovation centre. [10897]

  Mr. Page
  Nineteen universities in the United Kingdom have participated in the development of a business and innovation centre.

  Wylfa Power Station
  Mr. Alex Carlile
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will make a statement on(a) erosion and (b) other defects in fuel rod containers and tubes at the Wylfa power station on Ynys Mon since 1 January 1989. [11017]

  Mr. Eggar
  I understand that, during the course of its normal regulatory inspection duties at Wylfa nuclear power station, the Health and Safety Executive's nuclear installations inspectorate was informed of the discovery in July 1990 of a small number of corroded fuel elements in one of the dry fuel stores and also of the identification in May 1993 of erosion in part of the defuelling route. Nuclear Electric has made acceptable safety cases to the NII for dealing with these occurrences and is implementing appropriate action.

  Mr. Carlile
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list(a) all leaks and (b) all accidents that have occurred at the Wylfa power station on Ynys Môn since 1 January 1989; and if he will make a statement. [11016]

  Mr. Eggar
  Details of all incidents at Nuclear Electric plc's Wylfa nuclear power station are recorded in site logs and published in widely circulated fortnightly site newsletters. Copies are available in the Library of the House.

  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Mr. Goodlad) to a question from the then Member for Sherwood on 30 April 1987, Official Report, columns 203–204.
  145
  Mr. Carlile
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will place in the Library copies of the safety reports prepared since 1 January 1986 concerning the Wylfa power station on Ynys Môn. [11018]

  Mr. Eggar
  A copy of the report by the Health and Safety Executive's nuclear installations inspectorate setting out the findings of its assessment of Nuclear Electric's long-term safety review of Wylfa is already available in the Library of the House. In addition, site newsletters, which cover safety issues, are published for all United Kingdom civil nuclear installations, including Wylfa. Copies are available in the Library of the House.

  Oil and Gas Consumption
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list for(a) each of the constituent nations of the United Kingdom and (b) the United Kingdom as a whole for each of the last available five years the total consumption in quantity and in value at constant prices of (i) oil and (ii) gas, indicating the proportion of the total in each case and the overall percentage change in each component over the period. [8787]

  Mr. Page
  Data for the United Kingdom as a whole are shown in the table:

  UK Energy Consumption (1)

  Oil

  Natural gas (2)

  Quantity (thousand tonnes)

  Value (3) (£ million)

  Quantity (gigawatt hours)

  Value (3) (3 million)

  1990

  57,518

  22,505

  525,885

  7,210

  1991

  57,741

  21,845

  561,088

  7,700

  1992

  58,392

  21,256

  550,633

  7,214

  1993

  59,496

  22,631

  562,960

  6,855

  1994

  59,898

  22,808

  565,022

  7,205

  Percentage change in consumption

  1990–94

  +4.1

  +1.3

  +7.4

  -0.,1

  Notes:

  1Consumption by final users (i.e. net of fuel industry own use and conversion, transmission and distribution losses, but includes conversion losses by final users).

  2Including colliery methane.

  3Adjusted for inflation to 1990 price levels using the GDP deflator.

  Source:

  Digest of UK Energy Statistics 1995, Tables 5,7 and 27 (HMSO).

  Comprehensive information on a comparable basis for the constituent nations of the United Kingdom is not available.

  ROM-Data Corporation
  Mr. Jamieson
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade if he will list those employees in the Department of Trade and Industry south-west regional office who took part in the assessment of the regional selective assistance grant made to the ROM-Data Corporation in 1991 who subsequently(a) acted as directors and (b) were employed in a different capacity by ROM-Data Corporation. [8925]

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 15 January 1996]: I expect to be able to make a report about the findings before long.

  Scott Inquiry
  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what discussions staff employed in his Department in relation to the Scott inquiry have had on matters related to the Scott inquiry with persons(a) employed by and (b) working as consultants for Conservative central office; and what subjects were discussed. [10993]

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 22 January 1996]: None.

  Mr. Cook
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what are the responsibilities of the staff employed in his Department in relation to the Scott inquiry. [10992]

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 22 January 1996]: The responsibilities of staff in the Department of Trade and Industry employed on matters related to the inquiry are to provide Ministers and officials with advice on matters arising from the inquiry, and to liaise with the inquiry.

  Mr. Cook
  To ask the President of the Board of Trade what is the total cost of salaries since 1992 paid to persons in his Department employed on a part-time or full-time basis in any connection in relation to the Scott inquiry. [10222]

  Mr. Lang
  [holding answer 18 January 1996]: The direct salary cost of officials within DTI wholly employed on matters relating to the Scott inquiry since 1992 is approximately £303,000. Other officials will inevitably be involved from time to time; their direct salary cost is unquantifiable.

  The direct salary cost since 1992 of Sir Richard Scott's inquiry team, which also falls to my Department, is approximately £718,000.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Scott Inquiry
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Attorney-General who provided external legal advice for Ministers in the Department in relation to the Scott inquiry. [11049]

  The Attorney-General
  Information on who has sought legal advice and from whom is confidential.

OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

  General Electric Company
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 15 January,Official Report, column 358, about contracts awarded to GEC (a) what was bought by the Overseas Development Administration from GEC in the two contracts in 1991 and 1992 and (b) what was bought in each of the contracts supported by Overseas Development

  147
  Administration finance between GEC or its subsidiary companies and overseas clients; who the overseas client was; and how much Overseas Development Administration money was spent in connection with each of these contracts. [10271]

  Mr. Hanley
  The information is as follows:a) ODA's contracts with GEC in 1991–92
  Under the 1991 contract GEC have provided technical advisory services to the Yue Yang power station in China, including the training of Chinese engineers in the operation of coal fired power stations. The 1992 contract provided technical advisory services and equipment to the Abu Zabaal Fertiliser and Chemical Company Ltd in Egypt.
  b) other contracts referred to in the answer of 15 January
  The Indonesia project, working with GEC Alsthom and approved in 1995, includes the construction of one 500kV substation, the extension of another, the construction of seven 150kV substations, and the extension of four existing 150kV substations. The contract covers project management, substation design, engineering and specification of substation equipment, supply of 500kV, 150kV, and 20kV substation equipment and miscellaneous items, provision of engineering data and drawings, supply of test equipment, insurance and warranty, and the training of Indonesian personnel. The overseas client is PT Perusahaan Listrik Negara, the public electricity authority. The contract's value is £44.333 million, with ODA contributing ATP support of £15.516 million plus up to £43,000 for project monitoring.
  The Chandrapur to Ramagundum high voltage direct current link project, in India was approved in 1993. ODA has agreed to finance up to £63 million of a larger contract between GEC and PowerGrid Corporation of India. Under the ODA-financed portion GEC are supplying two HVDC back-to-back convertor stations plus associated equipment and technical services. £43 million has been spent to date.
  The Hirakud project in Orissa, India was approved in 1994. Within a total ODA project allocation of £18.8 million, ODA is financing a £14.7 million contract between GEC and the Orissa state electricity board, under which GEC is supplying capital equipment and training for Indian engineers. £8.5 million has been spent to date.

  Aid Procurement
  Miss Lestor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make available the recent review undertaken by his Department on aid procurement tied to the purchase of British goods and services. [10421]

  Mr. Hanley
  The review on aid procurement tied to the purchase of British goods and services was undertaken by ODA and other interested Whitehall

  Access to Work Beneficiaries by element of support by medical code letter

  Period: 6 June 1994–31 March 1995

  Medical code

  Special aids and equipment

  Adaptions to premises and equipment

  Personal reader service

  Assistance with fares to work

  Communicator Support at interview

  Support worker

  Adaptations to vehicles

  Miscellaneous support

  Total

  A

  66

  2

  —

  2

  —

  1

  1

  1

  73

  B

  9

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  10

  C

  59

  —

  —

  7

  —

  2

  4

  —

  72

  D

  12

  1

  —

  4

  —

  —

  —

  1

  18

  E

  10

  1

  —

  3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  14

  Q1

  131

  —

  —

  6

  4

  2

  —

  2

  145

  Q2

  53

  —

  —

  3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  56

  R

  390

  12

  —

  115

  —

  4

  13

  10

  544

  S

  469

  —

  —

  14

  —

  7

  7

  15

  512

  T1

  470

  21

  —

  125

  —

  11

  25

  8

  660

  T2

  2,059

  6

  1

  92

  —

  10

  8

  26

  2,202

  Y

  3

  —

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  5

  148
  Departments. ODA is currently producing a summary version of the review which will be made available as soon as possible.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Labour Statistics (Manchester)
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many persons aged(a) 16 and (b) 17 years are currently available for work in the Greater Manchester area and not in receipt of benefit. [10304]

  Mr. Forth
  There is no requirement for 16 and 17-year-olds to hold themselves available for work. No information is held on the number of 16 and 17-year-olds who are not in receipt of benefit.

  Access to Work
  Mr. Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what are the principal types of disabilities of people who have received assistance under the access to work scheme in each of the years 1994–95 and 1995–96 to date. [10129]

  Mr. Forth
  [holding answer 19 January 1996]: Responsibilities for the subject of the question has been delegated to the Employment Service agency under its chief executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Mike Fogden to Mr. Keith Bradley, dated 23 January 1996:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question about the types of disability of people who have received support through Access to Work.
  I attach a table that shows all the help provided through Access to Work from 6 June 1994 (the first day of the programme) to 31 March 1995. The table shows the elements of help and the number of people in disability categories. Some people get more than one element of help and therefore the totals do not show the total number of people supported.
  In 1994/95, 10,394 people were helped, including a number receiving help under the previous special schemes that replaced Access to Work on 6 June 1994.
  The principal types of disability of those receiving help were disabilities of the spine (around 21%); organic nervous diseases (10%); hearing difficulties (18%) and visual impairments (26%).
  I am sorry that we do not have interim figures for 1995/96. Analysis by disability type is done annually and figures will he available after the end of the operating year in March.
  I hope this is helpful.
  149

  Access to Work Beneficiaries by element of support by medical code letter

  Period: 6 June 1994–31 March 1995

  Medical code

  Special aids and equipment

  Adaptions to premises and equipment

  Personal reader service

  Assistance with fares to work

  Communicator Support at interview

  Support worker

  Adaptations to vehicles

  Miscellaneous support

  Total

  F

  714

  6

  —

  61

  1

  12

  9

  15

  818

  H

  37

  —

  —

  3

  —

  1

  —

  —

  41

  I

  6

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  7

  J

  73

  4

  —

  18

  —

  3

  1

  2

  101

  K1A

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  K1B

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  K2

  43

  —

  —

  9

  —

  —

  —

  2

  54

  L

  13

  —

  —

  2

  —

  —

  —

  2

  17

  V1

  51

  —

  —

  103

  —

  11

  2

  3

  170

  V2

  864

  16

  1

  294

  —

  23

  17

  13

  1,228

  X

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  U1

  12

  —

  —

  11

  —

  6

  —

  —

  29

  U2

  8

  —

  —

  12

  —

  3

  —

  —

  23

  U3

  96

  —

  —

  126

  1

  38

  —

  8

  269

  M1

  438

  5

  —

  8

  187

  101

  —

  53

  792

  M2

  862

  10

  —

  12

  79

  95

  —

  49

  1,107

  N

  534

  10

  —

  7

  11

  25

  —

  16

  603

  O

  1,696

  9

  176

  174

  8

  42

  2

  27

  2,134

  P

  1,141

  3

  37

  149

  —

  25

  —

  27

  1,382

  Z

  409

  5

  —

  58

  —

  14

  5

  9

  500

  Total

  10,728

  111

  215

  1,423

  291

  437

  94

  290

  13,589

  Medical code letters

  A, B, C, D, E: Amputations

  F: Arthritis and rheumatism

  H: Diseases of the digestive system

  I: Diseases of the genito-urinary system

  J: Diseases of the heart and circulatory system

  K1A, K1B, K2: Diseases of the respiratory system (except TB)

  L: Diseases of the skin

  M1, M2, N: Hearing impairments

  O, P: Visual impairments

  Q1, Q2: Injuries of head, face, neck, thorax, abdomen, pelvis, trunk

  R, S: Disabilities of the limbs

  T1, T2: Disabilities of the spine

  U1, U2, U3: Mental disabilities

  V1, V2: Organic nervous disorders

  X, Y: TB

  Z: Other disabilities.

  EU Universities (UK Students)
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many United Kingdom students are currently studying at other European Union university institutions as(a) undergraduates and (b) postgraduates. [10902]

  Mr. Forth
  Information is not available in the detail requested. Figures published by the European Union show that in 1991–92—the latest year for which full information is available—nearly 9,000 United Kingdom higher education students were studying in other member states, of which over 6,500 were participating in the Erasmus and Lingua programmes. In 1994–95, there were nearly 12,000 UK students studying in other member states under the Erasmus and Lingua programmes as well as an unknown number of other UK higher education students.

  University Facilities
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many universities in the United Kingdom have established(a) a business school and (b) a science park. [10898]

  Mr. Forth
  This information is not collected by the Government. However, I understand that there are currently 71 United Kingdom universities with business schools and 49 science parks in the UK with UK Science Park Association membership.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many universities in the United Kingdom have developed joint programmes with their local training and enterprise councils. [10894]

  Mr. Paice
  This information is not held centrally, but officials have requested Government offices to make inquiries of the training and enterprise councils in their regions and I will write to the hon. Member in due course.

  University Funding
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what powers she has to provide exceptional funding to universities which have particular areas of expertise. [10899]

  Mr. Forth
  Under the Further and Higher Education Act 1992, responsibility for determining the allocation to universities of grant funds provided by the Department for Education and Employment rests with the Higher Education Funding Council for England. The allocation to universities of grant funds relating to initial teacher training is, under the Education Act 1994, the responsibility of the Teacher Training Agency. The Secretary of State for Education and Employment has no powers to provide exceptional funding to universities which have particular areas of expertise.

  Careers Service (London)
  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans she has for the careers service in Greenwich, Lambeth, Lewisham and Southwark, following the decision of the Grand Met Trust to withdraw its plans to take over the contract to run the service. [10530]

  Mr. Forth
  [holding answer 22 January 1996]: The Department is discussing options with the four local authorities. The Department's priority is to ensure a high-quality careers service for the young people of the area.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many expressions of interest were received by each of the boroughs of Greenwich, Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham with regard to the contract to run these authorities' careers services; and which consortiums bid for the contract. [10532]

  Mr. Forth
  [holding answer 22 January 1996]: There were four bids submitted for the combined area of Greenwich, Lewisham, Lambeth and Southwark. Bids were submitted on a commercial in confidence basis and the Department must respect the confidence of the other organisations involved.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment on what criteria the Grand Met Trust was given preferred bidder status in respect of the contract to run the careers service in the boroughs of Greenwich, Lambeth, Lewisham and Southwark; what experience Grand Met has had in providing a careers service; and how many people were employed by the subsidiary of Grand Met bidding to run the careers service when the Department awarded it preferred bidder status. [10531]

  Mr. Forth
  [holding answer 22 January 1996]: Grand Met Trust submitted the best bid as measured against the criteria that were published in the "Prospectus for the Provision of London Careers Services from April 1996". Grand Met Trust has not previously provided a careers service. The Department recognised that bids might come from organisations entering this area of work for the first time. The prospectus stated, therefore, that such bidders must provide clear and realistic plans for meeting our requirements before the contract began. Grand Met Trust did so. The bid was submitted by Grand Met Trust, not a subsidiary. However, the trust stated its intention to form a subsidiary company to contract with the Department if preferred bidder status was awarded.

  Mr. Blunkett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment on what occasions and on what date Grand Met Trust expressed an interest in partnerships to run local authority careers services; and on what dates it notified her Department of withdrawals of interest. [10533]

  Mr. Forth
  [holding answer 22 January 1996]: Grand Met Trust submitted its bid to run the careers service in London's area 5 the boroughs of Greenwich, Lewisham, Lambeth and Southwark by the closing date of 10 April 1995. It confirmed its intention to withdraw from contract negotiations on 10 January 1996.

  Business Links
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many universities in the United Kingdom have participated in the launch of local business links initiatives. [10896]

  Mr. Page
  I have been asked to reply.

  Precise numbers are not available and could he obtained only at disproportionate cost. However, universities and other higher and further institutions have been closely involved in developing most business link partnerships.

  National Vocational Qualifications
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans she has to improve the provision by employers of national vocational qualifications; and if she will make a statement. [8788]

  Mr. Paice
  Decisions on the usage of national vocational qualifications are a matter for individuals and employers. The Government are, however, providing funds for the marketing of these qualifications. In the 1994 competitiveness White Paper, the Government announced a package of £31 million over three years to help ensure NVQs are fully up to date, rigorous and of high quality; and provide funds for their attainment in training programmes for young people and unemployed adults.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if she will publish for the last available two years for each of the constituent nations and standard regions of the United Kingdom and for the United Kingdom as a whole the total number of employers using national vocational qualifications to train their work force, indicating this figure as a percentage of the total number of employers in each case. [8919]

  Mr. Paice
  Estimates from the "Skill Needs in Britain" surveys show that the percentage of establishments with 25 or more employees in Great Britain offering national vocational qualifications or Scottish vocational qualifications to their employees increased from 31 per cent.—approximately 46,000—in 1994 to 40 per cent.—approximately 61,000—in 1995. The "Skill Needs of Small Firms 1994–95" survey estimated that approximately 144,000 establishments, or 13 per cent., with fewer than 25 employees offered NVQs or SVQs to their employees.

  The requested data are not available for Northern Ireland or the United Kingdom or for standard regions but data for Great Britain, Wales, Scotland, England and training, enterprise and education directorate—TEED—regions are given in the following two tables:

  Table 1: Establishments offering NVQs to their employees

  1994

  1995

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  Great Britain

  46,000

  31

  61,000

  40

  Wales

  2,500

  35

  3,500

  49

  Scotland

  3,500

  26

  4,000

  29

  England

  40,000

  31

  54,000

  41

  153

  Table 1: Establishments offering NVQs to their employees

  1994

  1995

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  TEED Regions

  London

  5,000

  21

  7,000

  31

  South-East

  6,000

  31

  8,000

  41

  South-West

  4,500

  37

  6,000

  48

  Eastern

  2,500

  18

  4,000

  32

  East Midlands

  3,000

  27

  4,500

  41

  West Midlands

  6,000

  40

  7,000

  46

  North-West (Manchester)

  3,000

  38

  3,500

  43

  North-West

  3,500

  35

  5,000

  52

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  5,000

  38

  6,000

  45

  Northern

  2,000

  34

  3,000

  45

  Notes:

  Base: Establishments with 25 or more employees.

  Estimated numbers of establishments have been individually rounded to the neatest 500 or 1,000 as appropriate depending on sample size.

  Source:

  Skill Needs in Britain 1994 and 1995.

  Table 2: Small establishments offering NVQs to their employees 1994–95

  Number

  Percentage

  Great Britain

  144,000

  13

  Wales

  9,000

  16

  Scotland

  8,000

  8

  England

  128,000

  13

  TEED Regions

  London

  10,000

  5

  South-East

  29,000

  18

  South-West

  14,000

  14

  Eastern

  11,000

  10

  East Midlands

  9,000

  13

  West Midlands

  13,000

  13

  North-West (Greater Manchester)

  15,000

  24

  North-West

  8,000

  11

  Yorks and Humberside

  14,000

  14

  Northern

  5,000

  13

  Notes:

  Base: Establishments with less than 25 employees.

  Estimated numbers are rounded to the nearest 1,000. Figures for Greater Manchester region should be treated with greater caution than those for other regions because they are based on only 95 interviews.

  Source:

  Skill Needs of Small Firms in Britain 1994–95.

  Mobile Phones
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many of the mobile phones which have been supplied to her Department in each of the last eight years have been cloned; and on what dates. [11008]

  Mr. Robin Squire
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Donohoe) on 19 December 1995,Official Report, column 1036.

  Employment Service
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what estimate she has made of the number of overpayments to unemployed claimants 154
  as a result of the industrial dispute in the Employment Service agency; and if he will make a statement. [11205]

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

  Letter from Mike Fogden to Mr. Rhodri Morgan, dated 23 January 1996:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question concerning the number of overpayments made to unemployed claimants as a result of the current industrial dispute with the CPSA in the Employment Service.
  Details of overpayments made are collected quarterly. The next set of figures will relate to the period ending 31 March. No current information is available about changes in levels of overpayments during the period since the industrial action started.
  Overpayments can, and do, arise for a variety of reasons and it would be very difficult to identify separately overpayments which are directly attributable to the industrial action. To do this would require complex analysis and reporting arrangements additional to those presently in place. These would add to the burden on those ES people continuing to work in the affected offices and further hinder the ability of the Employment Service to maintain customer service during this period of industrial action.
  I am sorry that I am unable to provide the information you requested.

HEALTH

  Mortuaries
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many mortuaries in(a) NHS trusts and (b) elsewhere had insufficient accommodation to meet demand over the Christmas period; and what plans he has to ensure adequate accommodation in the future. [9908]

  Mr. Horam
  This information is not available centrally. It is for individual trusts and local authorities to plan their mortuary accommodation to meet local needs.

  Medical Negligence
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many medical negligence cases were taken out against hospitals in the north-west region in each year since 1987–88 and in 1995–96, to date; [10560]

  (2) how many medical negligence cases were taken out against (a) hospitals in the north-west region and (b) each hospital in the region in each year since 1987–88; and if he will list (i) the solicitors' practices used by each hospital and (ii) the number of cases they undertook and at what cost for each of these years. [10640]

  Mr. Horam
  This information is not available centrally. The hon. Member may wish to contact Sir Donald Wilson, chairman of North West regional health authority, for details.

  Methadone
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what change there has been in methadone prescribing in south-east Northumberland since 1990; and what was the cost. [10626]
  155
  Mr. Malone
  This information is not available centrally. The hon. Member may wish to contact Mrs. Jackie Axelby, chief executive of Northumberland Health, for details.

  Meals on Wheels
  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list in ascending order the amount charged by each county council for the provision of meals on wheels. [10419]

  Mr. Bowis
  The information requested is not available centrally. My hon. Friend may wish to contact the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy, which publishes information on charges for services in its "Personal Social Services Statistics, Actuals and Estimates".

  Acute Beds
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the total number of acute beds(a) closed in 1995 and (b) opened since 1 January 1996. [10752]

  Mr. Horam
  The information available centrally provides details of the average daily number of available acute beds in each national health service trust. The latest year for which data are available is 1994–95 and this information is published annually in "Bed Availability for England", copies of which are available in the Library. Organisational changes may mean that the data for each trust may not be strictly comparable over time.

  NHS Staff (Assaults)
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many assaults occurred against NHS staff in each of the last five years. [10919]

  Mr. Horam
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave to the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn) on 18 December 1995,Official Report, column 948.

  NHS Finance
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 19 December 1995,Official Report, column 1141, on health authority general allocations, in what way the national weighted capitation formula differs from the York university recommendations. [10921]

  Mr. Horam
  The national weighted capitation formula does not differ from the recommendations made by York university in its report entitled "A Formula for Distributing NHS Revenues Based on Small Area Use of Hospital Beds".

  Consultants
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many whole-time equivalent female and male consultants there were in England at September 1994. [10751]
  156
  Mr. Malone
  The information is shown in the table.

  Male and female consultants in England as at 30 September 1994—whole-time equivalents

  Number

  Male

  12,930

  Female

  2,710

  Suicide
  Ms Harman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list his policies to reduce the suicide rate. [10747]

  Mr. Bowis
  The Government's "The Health of the Nation" strategy set a target of reducing the rate of suicide by 15 per cent. between 1990 and the year 2000. Figures based on estimates provided by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys show that the suicide rate in England fell by around 7 per cent. between 1992 and 1994. A wide range of initiatives are being pursued to this end. The key themes of our suicide prevention work are improving mental health services, increasing public awareness of mental health issues, targeting occupational and demographic groups at particular risk of suicide, and reducing access to means.

  Patient Hotels
  Mr. Bayley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the NHS trusts which have opened patient hotels indicating in each case(a) the location, (b) number of beds, (c) average bed occupancy rates, (d) the revenue cost of provision per occupied bed per day, (e) the opening date and (f) and the capital cost and in each case if the funding was (i) from NHS capital, (ii) by the private finance initiative and (iii) from other sources. [11109]

  Mr. Horam
  This information is not available centrally. It is a matter for local management.

  Specialised Services
  Mr. Coe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what arrangements he has made to support the purchasing of highly specialised services. [11704]

  Mr. Malone
  Following an internal review initiated by the chief medical officer into the provision of specialised services within the national health service, I have agreed that a new group be established to advise on the purchasing of specialised services. The new group is to be known as the national specialist commissioning advisory group and I have today placed in the Library the group's terms of reference and a list of its appointed members. The NSCAG will take over work currently carried out by the supra-regional services advisory group.

  Long-term Care
  Mr. Congdon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will respond to the Health Committee's first report, HC19, on long-term care. [11821]

  Mr. Bowis
  We have today published the Government's response to this report, copies of which are in the Library.
  157
  We welcomed the report's recognition of the priority we are attaching to implementation of our guidance on national health service responsibilities for continuing health care. Our response emphasises our commitment to securing, over time, significant improvements in the provision of continuing health care and much greater consistency in these services across the country.

  Residential Care
  Sir Michael Shersby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the statutory responsibilities to the social services departments of local authorities in respect of the provision of permanent residential care for those individuals who have exhausted their savings paying for private residential care. [8802]

  Mr. Bowis
  Since April 1993 local authorities have had a responsibility to arrange accommodation in residential care and nursing homes for elderly people who, for whatever reason, are assessed as needing such care but are unable to meet the cost.

  Elderly people who entered independent sector homes before April 1993 will have preserved rights to the higher rates of income support and are the statutory responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security. If they face eviction from a residential care home, local social service authorities have powers to make alternative arrangements.

  Regulations and guidance were issued to local authorities and health authorities in March 1993 detailing their powers to help people who were resident in independent sector residential care and nursing homes on 31 March 1993 and who have preserved rights to the higher levels of income support. Copies of circular LAC(93)6 are available in the Library.

  Total weekly death registrations of those age 60 and over by health region of residence, November and December 1995

  Weekly death registrations.

  Week ending:

  Health region of residence

  3 November 1995

  10 November 1995

  17 November 1995

  24 November 1995

  1 December 1995

  8 December 1995

  15 December 1995

  22 December 1995

  29 December 1995

  Northern

  561

  545

  579

  614

  592

  575

  624

  739

  673

  Yorkshire

  682

  717

  688

  742

  783

  806

  821

  896

  907

  Trent

  841

  896

  860

  948

  936

  1,030

  1,028

  1,066

  1,036

  East Anglia

  478

  504

  475

  532

  514

  542

  585

  669

  551

  North-west Thames

  442

  449

  481

  478

  503

  527

  531

  578

  467

  North-east Thames

  588

  613

  659

  682

  633

  704

  775

  767

  724

  South-east Thames

  685

  705

  762

  751

  723

  723

  920

  990

  742

  South-west Thames

  494

  547

  583

  565

  532

  635

  692

  713

  598

  Wessex

  588

  665

  692

  648

  686

  607

  692

  788

  737

  Oxford

  402

  351

  352

  423

  483

  428

  454

  524

  519

  South Western

  727

  658

  700

  711

  797

  741

  823

  928

  817

  West Midlands

  950

  984

  949

  1,123

  1,126

  1,120

  1,309

  1,236

  1,011

  Mersey

  394

  457

  456

  475

  547

  504

  582

  598

  591

  Intensive Care Beds (Yorkshire)
  Mrs. Peacock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many adult intensive care beds were available in each health area in Yorkshire in each of the last 15 years; and what was their occupancy rate. [10326]

  Mr. Horam
  Available information on the average daily number of adult intensive care beds, for 1988–89 to 1994–95, is published annually in "Bed availability for England", copies of which are available in the Library. Information on bed occupancy rates is not available centrally.

  Mrs. Peacock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many intensive care beds for children were available in each health area in Yorkshire in each of the last 15 years; and what was their occupancy rate. [10362]

  Mr. Horam
  This information is not available centrally. The national health service executive arranged for Sheffield children's hospital to co-ordinate the monitoring of occupancy and demand for beds at 17 paediatric intensive care units in England for the period to 31 March.

  Deaths (Winter Months)
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the number of deaths of those aged 60 years or above, registered in each week, in each region, since the beginning of November 1995 until the most recent week. [10553]

  Mr. Horam
  Office of Population Censuses and Surveys' weekly death figures are a best estimate of the number of deaths registered over the whole of England and Wales. A regional analysis is not available for the most recent weeks. The latest available regional data are for the last week of 1995.

  The provisional numbers of deaths of those aged 60 years or over, registered in each week, in each health region of residence, from the beginning of November to the end of December 1995, are shown in the table.
  159

  Total weekly death registrations of those age 60 and over by health region of residence, November and December 1995

  Weekly death registrations.

  Week ending:

  Health region of residence

  3 November 1995

  10 November 1995

  17 November 1995

  24 November 1995

  1 December 1995

  8 December 1995

  15 December 1995

  22 December 1995

  29 December 1995

  North Western

  822

  852

  919

  916

  881

  928

  1,017

  1,089

  905

  Wales

  571

  591

  622

  648

  688

  659

  694

  779

  737

  Others1

  46

  70

  62

  80

  126

  139

  121

  197

  195

  Total

  9,271

  9,604

  9,839

  10,336

  10,550

  10,668

  11,668

  12,557

  11,210

  1Other includes deaths to non-residents of England and Wales and deaths which have not yet been coded.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions have been held between his Department and local authority associations concerning the Children Act 1989 and its implementation for the need of asylum seekers' children following the implementation of the Social Security (Persons from Abroad) Miscellaneous Amendment Regulations; and if he will make a statement. [11079]

  Mr. Bowis
  The implications of the benefit changes of asylum seekers and their children were discussed as part of a regular series of meetings between my officials and officers of the local authority associations. Discussions have continued informally. Department of Health and Department of the Environment officials are meeting the local authority associations to discuss details of a special grant which will assist local authorities with any unavoidable additional costs arising under homelessness legislation of the Children Act.

  Mobile Phones
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many of the mobile telephones which have been supplied to his Department in each of the last eight years have been cloned; and on what dates. [11010]

  Mr. Horam
  There have been five instances of cloning in the Department in 1995.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish details of the consortia that have been successful in private finance initiative bids. [11211]

  Mr. Horam
  The main contractors, where their details are available, who have successfully bid for private finance initiative schemes with a capital value over £1 million are shown in the table. Information on smaller schemes is not available centrally.

  List of approved private finance schemes by region—main contractors

  Scheme

  Contractor

  Northern and Yorkshire

  Royal Victoria: magnetic

  GVD Finance (Siemens

  resonance imager

  Group)

  Yorkshire RHA: clinical waste

  YWE (Yorkshire Water

  incinerator

  Enterprises)

  St. James's University Hospital:

  YCL Ltd. (Yorkshire Cogan

  combined heat and power plant

  Ltd.)

  Tees Health Authority:

  ANS Ltd. (Associated Nursing

  residential accommodation for

  Services)

  160

  List of approved private finance schemes by region—main contractors

  Scheme

  Contractor

  elderly and elderly mentally ill

  South Tyneside: pathology

  Cleveland Medical

  services

  Laboratories Ltd.

  Royal Victoria Infirmary: car

  Centreland Group/Gordon

  park

  Durham/Dent

  United Leeds Teaching

  ULTH Charitable

  Hospital: power station

  Trust/Medley

  Trent

  Leicester Mental Health: office

  Raynsway Properties Ltd.

  accommodation

  Doncaster Health Care NHS

  Motherwell Bridge Envirotec

  Trust: clinical waste incinerator

  Ltd.

  Anglia and Oxford

  North Bedfordshire Health

  Health and Care (UK) Ltd.

  Authority: residential

  accommodation for elderly

  mentally ill

  Royal Berks. and Battle: car

  Proteam (Hemdean

  park etc.

  Investments and Lovell

  Construction)

  South Buckinghamshire: new

  Healthcare Group (Taylor

  district general hospital

  Woodrow, Nexus, NWS

  Bank, Granada TFM, CODA,

  Hoare Lea and Partners,

  Waterman Partnership,

  Northcroft)

  North Thames

  Ealing Hammersmith and

  Sun Life Properties

  Hounslow: office

  accommodation

  New River Health Authority:

  Markheath PLC

  office accommodation

  Kensington Chelsea and

  Higgs and Hill

  Westminster: staff

  accommodation

  Brent and Harrow: residential

  CHS Ltd.

  accommodation elderly

  mentally ill

  Herts. Health Agency: office

  Possfund Custodian Trustees

  accommodation

  Hillingdon Health Agency:

  Hayes Cottage Nursing Home

  office accommodation

  Ltd.

  North Herts. NHS Trust:

  UCL Engineering

  pathology services

  Havering Hospital NHS Trust:

  Honeywell Control Systems

  estates services

  Ltd.

  South Thames

  South-East London

  Parks Incorporated

  Commissioning Agency and

  Lambeth, Southwark and

  Lewisham FHSA: office

  accommodation

  161

  List of approved private finance schemes by region—main contractors

  Scheme

  Contractor

  Kings Healthcare: clinical waste

  Clinical Waste Ltd.

  incinerator

  South-East Kent Health

  Dyvells

  Authority: clinical waste

  incinerator

  East Sussex Health Authority:

  ANS Ltd.

  nursing homes

  Kent and Canterbury Hospital:

  Bradford and Northern

  staff accommodation

  Housing Association

  Frimley Park Hospital: magnetic

  Lister Bestcare

  resonance imager

  Epsom General Practitioner

  EMP (Environmental and

  Fundholders: day surgery unit

  Medical Products) Ltd.

  Eastbourne Hospitals: clinical

  Clinical Waste Ltd.

  waste incinerator

  Merton Sutton and Wandsworth

  Haven Healthcare PLC

  Health Authority: residential

  accommodation for elderly

  mentally ill

  Mid Sussex (Princess Royal

  The Diagnostic Co. Ltd. (now

  Hospital): magnetic resonance

  Westminster Healthcare)

  imager

  St. Peters Hospital: housing

  Landmark Housing

  redevelopment and

  Association/Hunter and

  management

  Partners architects/Bird and

  Bird legal

  South and West

  Plymouth and Torbay Health

  South and West Water PLC

  Authority: clinical waste

  and Hull Waste Co.

  incinerator

  Royal Bournemouth and

  Whiterose Environmental

  Christchurch: clinical waste

  incinerator

  West Midlands region

  Alexandra Healthcare: clinical

  Medical Waste International

  waste incinerator

  Ltd.

  Birmingham Heartlands: car

  Transcare

  park

  Herefordshire Community

  Belmont Abbey

  Health: office accommodation

  North-West

  Oldham Hospital NHS Trust:

  White Rose Environmental

  clinical waste incinerator

  Bolton Health Authority:

  White Rose Environmental

  clinical waste incinerator

  North Manchester NHS Trust:

  Lister Bestcare

  magnetic resonance imager

  Royal Liverpool University

  Transcare Health Ltd./Team

  Hospital: car park

  Services UK Ltd.

  Aintree Hospitals: patient hotel

  St. Andrews Homes/Sedex House

  NHS Staff Salaries
  Mr Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what were the salary costs of employing(a) general and senior managers, (b) administrative and clerical staff and (c) nursing and midwifery staff in each year since 1989–90. [11212]

  Mr. Malone
  This information is contained in table 7.9 of "Health and Personal Social Services Statistics for England," produced annually by the Department of Health, copies of which are available in the Library.
  162
  Provisional figures for 1994–95 are shown in the table.

  Hospital and Community Health Service expenditure 1995–95

  £000

  General and senior managers

  723,361

  Nurses and midwives

  6,184,015

  Administrative and clerical

  1,582,129

  Source:

  1. The annual financial returns of district and regional health authorities and the special health authorities for the London postgraduate teaching hospitals.

  2. The annual financial returns of NHS trusts.

  Under-age Working
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many inspections of work places have been undertaken in each year since 1979; and how many have revealed under-age working. [10774]

  Mr. Bowis
  The information is not available centrally.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what consideration he has given to the need for further protection for children against illegal employment; and if he will make a statement. [11002]

  Mr. Bowis
  I consider that the current legal system for protecting children who choose to work is adequate. Enforcement of the law in this area is a matter for local authorities.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Departmental Officials
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs pursuant to his answer of 15 January,Official Report, column 408, (1) if he will place in the Library a list of all those of his Department's officials who have disclosed a current interest, indicating where they are based and the industry and the nature of the interest they have; [10476]

  (2) how many of his Department's officials have a current interest which they have disclosed; how many are based overseas; and how many have an interest with a business concern that is associated with the arms trade. [10475]

  Mr. Hanley
  We are unable to provide the information without incurring disproportionate cost.

  Tibet
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with the Government of China about religious freedom in Tibet and about the refusal of the Chinese authorities to recognise the Tibetan candidate for Panchen Lama; and if he will make a statement. [10424]

  Mr. Hanley
  [holding answer 22 January 1996]: My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary raised our concerns about the situation in Tibet during his discussions with the Chinese Prime Minister, and with the Chinese Foreign Minister, during his visit to Peking earlier this month.
  163
  We regret that the Chinese Government and the Tibetan religious leaders have been unable to reach agreement on the selection of the new Panchen Lama. We will continue to urge the Chinese authorities to enter into a dialogue with the Tibetans, including the Dalai Lama, without preconditions, and to ensure the adequate protection of the distinct cultural, ethnic, linguistic and religious identity of the Tibetans.

  Pakistan (Murder)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the latest information he has received from the Pakistani authorities in respect of the investigation into the murder of Mohammed Afzal in Jaurah village, Pakistan on 4 October 1992. [10876]

  Mr. Hanley
  The Pakistani authorities have provided no further information about their inquiries into the murder of Mohammed Afzal. Since Mr. Afzal was a dual national they are not compelled to do so.

  Gulf States (Human Rights)
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received concerning abuse of human rights in(a) Saudi Arabia, (b) Bahrain, (c) Oman and (d) other Gulf states during 1995; and if he will make a statement.[11090]

  Mr. Hanley
  We have received a number of representations from various groups and individuals concerning human rights in the Gulf countries.

  Scott Inquiry
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 15 January 1996,Official Report, column 589, who provided external legal advice for Ministers in the Department in relation to the Scott inquiry. [10924]

  Mr. Hanley
  The names of the individuals and their legal advisers are confidential to them.

  Mr. Robin Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what are the responsibilities of the staff employed in his Department in relation to the Scott inquiry. [10988]

  Mr. Hanley
  [holding answer 22 January 1996]: The responsibilities of staff in the FCO employed on matters relating to the inquiry are to provide Ministers and officials with advice on matters arising from the inquiry, and to liaise with the inquiry.

  Mr. Cook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions staff employed in his Department in relation to the Scott inquiry have had on matters related to the Scott inquiry with persons(a) employed by and (b) working as consultants for Conservative central office; and what subjects were discussed. [10989]

  Mr. Hanley
  [holding answer 22 January 1996]: None.

  European Directives
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what new systems he has put in place to ensure that European directives are not gold plated in domestic regulations. [10071]

  Mr. David Davis
  [holding answer 22 January 1996]: It is the Government's policy that EC directives should not be gold plated by the addition of unnecessary burdens when implementing them in the United Kingdom. We keep existing legislation under review in the light of this policy. Official guidance on gold plating is currently being reviewed in consultation with other Government Departments.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will place in the Library copies of the guidance notes, office notes and other relevant documents which relate to his efforts in(a) removing gold plating from existing domestic regulation and (b) ensuring new European directives are not gold plated. [10059]

  Mr. David Davis
  [holding answer 22 January 1996]: Official guidance on gold plating is currently being reviewed in consultation with other Government Departments. Work on this is being co-ordinated by the deregulation unit of the Cabinet Office.

  Official Gifts
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will give details of the official gifts received by Ministers in his Department in 1994–95. [10162]

  Mr. Hanley
  [holding answer 22 January I996]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer given on 23 May 1995 by the then Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, to the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Mr. Goodlad), Official Report, column 532.

  Heads of Mission (Official Uniform)
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list those missions where official uniforms are worn on ceremonial occasions by the head of missions. [10240]

  Mr. Hanley
  [holding answer 22 January 1996]: Official uniforms are worn on ceremonial occasions by the heads of mission in:
  Bangkok, Bandar Seri Begawan, Brussels (embassy), The Hague, Holy See, Luxembourg, Madrid, Rabat, Tokyo, Mbabane.

  Governors wear uniform on ceremonial occasions in the following territories:
  Anguilla, Bermuda, British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, Falkland and Dependencies, Gibraltar, Hong Kong, Montserrat, St. Helena and dependencies, Turks and Caicos Islands.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) how much has been spent on external consultants in the tendering process of the private finance initiative in each year since its introduction(a) in real terms and (b) in cash terms

  165
  disaggregated by (i) legal fees, (ii) publicity costs, (iii) accountancy fees and (iv) management consultancy fees; [10951]

  (2) what have been the running costs relating to the tendering process of the private finance initiative in each year since its introduction (a) in real terms and (b) in cash terms disaggregated by (i) staff costs, (ii) information technology and (iii) other costs. [10952]

  Mr. Hanley
  [holding answer 22 January 1996]: The Foreign and Commonwealth Office, including the Overseas Development Administration, is fully committed to the private finance initiative and is exploring the use of private capital for projects in a number of areas, including the home and overseas estate, information technology and other technical equipment. None of these projects has yet reached the tender stage.

  Gultasab Hussain
  Mr. Madden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when a decision is to be taken on the application made in Islamabad by Gultasab Hussain—Ref. Imm/c 8645; and H.O. H366271—to join his wife in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement. [10996]

  Mr. Hanley
  [holding answer 22 January 1996]: I have asked the high commission at Islamabad for details and will arrange for the hon. Member to receive a substantive reply from the migration and visa correspondence unit as soon as possible.

  Civil Personnel (Costs)
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 12 December to the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond),Official Report, column 576, if he will publish the total estimated salaries and associated expenses of civil personnel in his Department located in (a) England, (b) Wales, (c) Scotland, (d) Northern Ireland and (e) the United Kingdom for the latest available year; and if he will make a statement. [9359]

  Mr. Hanley
  The cost of salaries, including national insurance and superannuation, for staff in the FCO diplomatic wing, Overseas Development Administration and executive agencies in 1994–95 was:

  £

  England

  125,223,000

  Scotland

  9,250,000

  Total

  134,473,000

  There are no staff located in Wales or Northern Ireland.

  China
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his recent visit to Beijing. [10356]

  Mr. Hanley
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer which I gave to the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) on 22 January,Official Report, column 10.
  166
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the names of hon. Members who have made representations to him concerning the television programme "The Dying Rooms". [10328]

  Mr. Hanley
  Those hon. Members who have made representations to my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary have done so in confidence on behalf of constituents. It would be a breach of that confidence to provide the list requested.

  Questions have been tabled in the House by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill, (Mr. Alton), and in another place by Lord Braine of Wheatley. Early-day motion 245, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs), also addressed this subject.

  China and Iran (Entry Clearance)
  Mr. Parry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which Members of the House of Commons and the House of Lords are not allowed to enter China and Iran; and if he will make a statement. [10470]

  Mr. Hanley
  We are not aware of any bans on hon. Members entering China or Iran. We do our best to assist with the travel plans of hon. Members, but entry clearance to the People's Republic of China and to the Islamic Republic of Iran is ultimately a matter for the authorities of those countries.

  Saudi Arabia
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the extent of democracy in Saudi Arabia. [11019]

  Mr. Hanley
  The Government of Saudi Arabia have taken significant steps in recent years to expand the consultative process. We welcome this progress.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent meetings have been held with representatives of the Government of Saudi Arabia concerning human rights; and if he will make a statement. [11021]

  Mr. Hanley
  We and our European Union partners discuss human rights regularly with the Saudi Arabian Government.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has held with the Government of Saudi Arabia concerning the asylum request of Dr. al-Masari; and if he will make a statement. [10847]

  Mr. Hanley
  The presence and activities of Dr. al-Masari in the United Kingdom have been raised by the Saudi authorities on a number of occasions. The Saudis have been told that Her Majesty's Government disapprove of Dr. al-Masari's activities, but that he would be treated strictly in accordance with UK and international law.

  Mobile Phones
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many of the mobile telephones which have been supplied to his Department in each of the last eight years have been cloned; and on what dates. [11011]

  Mr. Hanley
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Donohoe) on 7 December 1995,Official Report, column 340. The overall incidence of cloning of phones issued to the diplomatic wing is listed:

  1988–1993 = none

  1994 October = 2 phones

  1995 January = 1 phone

  1995 February = 1 phone

  1995 March = 4 phones

  1995 April = 1 phone

  1995 May = 1 phone

  1995 June = 2 phones

  1995 July to present = none

  No mobile phones used by the aid wing have been cloned.

  World Service (Oman Transmitter)
  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the impact on the BBC World Service of using the private finance initiative in the construction of the Oman transmitter; and what proposals he has to deal with the consequences of such a proposal. [11245]

  Mr. Hanley
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 16 January,Official Report, columns 560–61. The impact on the BBC World Service of successfully applying the private finance initiative would be positive and the consequences would be a matter for discussion with them. The project referred to by the hon. Member is still the subject of detailed negotiations.

  Sierra Leone
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the feasibility of holding free and fair elections in Sierra Leone on 26 February. [10471]

  Mr. Hanley
  We have welcomed the assurance by the new Head of State that he intends to maintain the election timetable. Provided progress is maintained, we shall continue to provide support for the democratic transition.

  Cameroon
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the accession of Cameroon to the Commonwealth. [10472]

  Mr. Hanley
  The Government welcome Cameroon's entry into the Commonwealth. We look forward to Cameroon's contribution to the full range of Commonwealth activities.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Executive Agencies
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action heads of his Department's executive agencies are taking to safeguard the provision of pre-retirement courses; and if he will make a statement. [9145]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  Responsibility for this matter is delegated to agency chief executives and I have asked them to reply to the hon. Member direct.

  Letter from P. I. Stanley to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 23 January 1996:
  ACTION TO SAFEGUARD THE PROVISION OF PRE-RETIREMENT COURSES
  You asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action heads of his Department's executive agencies are taking to safeguard the provision of pre-retirement courses. The Minister has asked me to reply to you in respect of his Central Science Laboratory (CSL) Agency, as this is an operational matter for which I am responsible.
  CSL has a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Establishments Group of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Under this MOU the Ministry's Welfare Branch is required to invite CSL staff aged 58 years and over to attend pre-retirement courses at some stage during their last two years of employment. Whilst staff are encouraged to attend such courses there is no compulsion to do so. There are no proposals at present to alter these arrangements.
  In cases of Voluntary Early Retirement or Severance the Department has negotiated with consultants to provide counselling and career services and with financial advisers to provide independent advice to Agency staff. Again this is on a voluntary basis and there is no compulsion on staff to take advantage of the services offered.

  Letter from T. W. A. Little to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 23 January 1996:
  The Minister has asked me to reply to your question on action being taken by the Veterinary Laboratories Agency (known as the Central Veterinary Laboratory until 30 September 1995) to safeguard the provision of pre-retirement courses.
  MAFF provides pre-retirement courses which staff from the Veterinary Laboratories Agency attend as appropriate, and for which the Agency repays the service provider.

  Letter from C. J. Lawson to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 23 January 1996:
  In my Chief Executive's absence, the Minister has asked me to reply to your question about pre-retirement courses for staff of the Veterinary Medicines Directorate (VMD). This is an operational matter for which my chief executive is responsible. (9145)
  The VMD has a formal agreement with the Establishments Group of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for the provision of personnel services. Under this agreement the Welfare branch of the Ministry is required to invite all VMD staff aged 57 or over (or otherwise if appropriate) to "Preparation for Retirement" seminars. This arrangement works well and VMD staff have benefited from the pre-retirement courses run by the Ministry. There are no proposals to change this arrangement.

  Letter form G. K. Bruce to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 23 January 1996:
  The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has asked me to reply, in respect of the Pesticides Safety Directorate (PSD), to your question about the provision of pre-retirement courses for staff within the Agency. (9145)
  PSD has a Service Level Agreement with its parent Department—the Ministry of Agriculture Fisheries and Food. Under this agreement the Welfare Branch of the Ministry is required to invite

  169
  all PSD staff aged 57 or over (or otherwise if appropriate) to "Preparation for Retirement" seminars. This arrangement works well and I am not aware of any proposal to change it.

  Letter from P. Needham to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 23 January 1996:
  The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has asked me to reply to you concerning your Parliamentary question (PQ384) in which you asked what action heads of his Department's Executive Agencies are taking to safeguard the provision of pre-retirement courses.(9145)
  ADAS will continue to offer pre-retirement courses as appropriate.

  Letter from J. McNeill to Mr. M. Redmond, dated 23 January 1996:
  As Chief Executive of the Meat Hygiene Service, your question to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food concerning pre-retirement courses has been passed to me for reply with regard to this Executive Agency.(9145)
  As you may know, the Meat Hygiene Service was established on 1 April 1995. The Agency is committed to the providing staff with suitable preparation for retirement and intends to make use of MAFF's training facilities in this respect, as the need arises.

  Official Hospitality
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much was spent on official hospitality by agencies associated with his Department in(a) 1993–94 and 1994–95; what is projected for 1995–96. [9167]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  [holding answer 15 January 1996]: Responsibility for this matter is delegated to agency chief executives and I have asked them to reply to the hon. Member direct.

  Letter from G. K. Bruce to Mr. Tony Banks, dated 23 January 1996:
  The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has asked me to reply, in respect of the Pesticides Safety Directorate (PSD), to your question concerning hospitality.[9167]
  The following amounts have been spent on official hospitality for the three years concerned:

  £

  1993–94

  Actual expenditure

  380

  1994–95

  Actual expenditure

  422

  1995–96

  Projected expenditure

  1,400

  Letter from P. I. Stanley to Mr. Tony Banks, dated 23 January 1996:
  EXPENDITURE ON OFFICIAL HOSPITALITY
  You asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to provide information for his executive agencies on official hospitality expenditure in each financial year since 1993/94. The Minister has asked me to reply to you in respect of his Central Science Laboratory (CSL) Agency, as this is an operational matter for which I am responsible.
  Total expenditure for each of the years in question is as follows:

  1993/94: £4.7K

  1994/95: £10.4K

  1995/96: £23.0K (estimated)

  The Agency was significantly enlarged in April 1994 following the merger with the MAFF Food Science Laboratories at Norwich and Aberdeen, and this is reflected in increased expenditure from 1994/95.
  170
  Letter from P. Needham to Mr. Tony Banks, dated 23 January 1996:
  The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has asked me to reply to you concerning your Parliamentary question (PQ385) in which you asked how much was spent on official hospitality by agencies associated with his Department in (a) 1994–95 and 1994–95; and what is projected for 1995–96.
  The costs incurred by ADAS on official hospitality for each of the last two years are as follows:

  1993/94: £14,197

  1994/95: £20,086

  There is no projected figure available for 1995/96.

  Letter from J. McNeill to Mr. Tony Banks, dated 23 January 1996:
  As Chief Executive of the Meat Hygiene Service, your question to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food concerning official hospitality has been passed to me to reply with regard to this Executive Agency.
  As you may know, the Meat Hygiene Service was established on 1 April, 1995. Therefore, there was no such expenditure in the year 1993/94. In 94/95, prior to the Agency's launch, £10,580 was spent on hospitality and current projections for this financial year are for a total of circa £7,000.

  Letter from J. M. Rutter to Mr. Tony Banks, dated 23 January 1996:
  The Minister has asked me to reply to your question about expenditure on official hospitality by the Veterinary Medicines Directorate, for each year since 1993/94, as this is an operational matter for which I am responsible.(9167)
  Expenditure on official hospitality, which principally covers buffet lunches for industry liaison meetings and advisory groups, was as follows:

  1993/94: £1,034.63

  1994/95: £1,817.26

  It is anticipated that expenditure in 1995/96 will not exceed £1,000.

  Letter from T. W. A. Little to Mr. Tony Banks, dated 23 January 1996:
  The Minister has asked me to reply to your question concerning spending on official hospitality in the Veterinary Laboratories Agency (known as the Central Veterinary Laboratory until 30 September 1995).(9167)
  The amounts spent on official hospitality in 1993/94 and 1994/95 were £16,720 and £12,076 respectively. I will write to you next week with projected figures for 1995/96.

  Letter from T. W. A. Little to Mr. Tony Banks, dated 23 January 1996:
  I promised to write this week with the projected figures for spending on hospitality in the Veterinary Laboratories Agency (VLA) for 1995/96.
  The VLA was established on 1 October 1995, from the merger of the existing Central Veterinary Laboratory with the Veterinary Investigation Service, which was part of the State Veterinary Service. To provide this information it was necessary to incorporate expected spending from October 1995 to March 1996 by the former VI Service.
  Full year spending on official hospitality in the Agency is projected to be £16,400.

  Intervention Beef
  Dr. Strang
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what is his estimate of the average cost in the United Kingdom of storing 1 tonne of intervention beef for one year, including the depreciation of the value of the beef; [9468]
  171
  (2) what is his estimate of the average cost in the United Kingdom of storing 1 tonne of intervention beef for one year, excluding the depreciation of the value of the beef; [9467]

  (3) what is his estimate of the difference between the value of a tonne of beef taken into intervention in the United Kingdom, and the value of that beef upon leaving intervention after one year in intervention. [9469]

  Mr. Douglas Hogg
  [holding answer 17 January 1996]: I have asked the chief executive of the Intervention Board to reply to the hon. Member direct.

  Letter from G. Trevelyan to Dr. Gavin Strang, dated 23 January 1996:
  The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has asked me to reply to your Parliamentary Questions (9467, 9468 and 9469) tabled for answer on Wednesday 17 January 1996:
  "To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his estimate of the average cost in the United Kingdom of storing one tonne of intervention beef for one year, excluding the depreciation of the value of the beef. (9467)
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his estimate for the average cost in the United Kingdom of storing one tonne of intervention beef for one year, including the depreciation of the value of the beef. (9468)
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his estimate of the difference between the value of a tonne of beef taken into intervention in the United Kingdom and the value of that beef upon leaving intervention after one year in intervention. (9469)"
  Intervention beef is stored in commercial cold stores. The rates paid by the Agency are determined by open competition and can vary in line with changes in the demand for cold storage. The average costs of storing intervention beef for one year, including inspection, receipt, handling and delivering out charges is about £120 per tonne (excluding VAT).
  For budgetary purposes the EC Regulations require the book value of beef taken into intervention to be depreciated on entry by 60% of its purchase price to bring it more into line with the foreseeable price at which it might subsequently be sold. Beef is purchased in the form of fresh carcasses which have a higher market value than the stored frozen product. Currently depreciation on entry would be £1,759 on a tonne of beef purchased at £2,932. Decisions are taken by the Commission at the end of each of their financial years, ending 15 October, as to whether further changes in the valuation of stocks are needed to reflect market price movements. It is not possible to predict the extent to which this may give rise to further costs in the form of depreciated stock values.
  I am sending a copy of this letter to the House of Commons Library and the Public Information Office.

  Whales
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what reports he has received on the under-reporting of whale species by the former Soviet Union. [10150]

  Mr. Baldry
  At the meeting of the International Whaling Commission held in Mexico in 1994 the Russian Federation gave details of the inaccurate catch reporting by the former Soviet Union. Revised historical catch data were submitted to the scientific committee at the IWC meeting in Dublin in 1995 and further revised information is expected to be submitted to the scientific committee at this year's meeting of the IWC in Aberdeen.

  Set-aside Payments
  Mr. Allason
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proportion of set-aside payments are made after the date recommended by the European Commission. [10682]

  Mr. Baldry
  So far as possible, MAFF aims to make main payments under the arable area payments scheme between 16 October and 31 December, as required by European Community regulations. This year some 83 per cent. of claims were paid in that period. I regret the delay to the remainder, which was caused by the need to validate claims to the exacting standards required under the Community rules. Payment of these claims will be made as soon as possible.

  Egg Imports
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many eggs were imported into the United Kingdom in each of the last five years; and how many of those were successfully sold as British after grading. [11213]

  Mr. Baldry
  Total imports of poultry eggs in shell-fresh, preserved or cooked, not for hatching were as follows:

  Million dozen

  1990

  57.2

  1991

  34.2

  1992

  24.8

  1993

  20.7

  1994

  32.2

  19951

  16.7

  1Year to September inclusive (provisional figure).

  No records are kept on the destination of imported eggs once they have entered the UK, but we understand that the majority go for processing into egg products. We are not aware that imported shell eggs have been passed off as British.

TRANSPORT

  National Rail Timetable
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make it his policy that Railtrack should be required to continue to publish a national rail timetable. [8491]

  Mr. Watts
  It is a condition of Railtrack's network licence that it must publish, or procure the publication of, a national timetable of railway passenger services unless the Rail Regulator consents otherwise.

  Railways (Public Service Obligation Grant)
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what revenue subsidy was paid through the PSO grant to each of the rail services comprising(a) Great

  173
  Western Intercity, (b) South West Trains and (c) London Tilbury and Southend in (i) 1993–94 and (ii) the last year in which British Rail was wholly responsible for these services. [8492]

  Mr. Watts
  The year 1993–94 was the last year in which support payments to British Rail were made entirely under the PSO grant provisions; in 1994–95 payments were made under both the PSO provisions and under section 52 of the Railways Act 1993. In 1993–94, InterCity services received no PSO grant. Network SouthEast—formerly responsible for the services now operated by South West Trains and London Tilbury and Southend—received no PSO grant in support of revenue, but received some £372 million of PSO grant in support of investment.

  Grant payments in 1994–95, the last year in which BR will have been wholly responsible for these services, are not comparable with those in 1993–94, because the basis for payment was changed, as a result of restructuring the railway industry. In 1994–95, Great Western received £57.5 million, South West Trains £93.7 million and London Tilbury and Southend £30.7 million. These figures included administered profits of £3 million, £3.7 million and £900,000 respectively.

  Local Authority Transport Packages
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what was the total bid for transport packages by local authorities for the year 1996–97; how much in total has been allocated in response to these bids; and how much is represented by(a) grants and (b) loans sanctions. [8525]

  Mr. Norris
  Local authorities outside London bid a total of £685.586 million for major highway schemes, major public transport schemes and minor work in packages.

  Some £78.7 million in supplementary credit approval has been allocated towards minor works in the 53 packages that were accepted for funding in 1996–97. In addition, £115.227 million has been allocated in that year towards major schemes in areas with approved packages, of which 50 per cent. is grant and 50 per cent. credit approval.

  Traffic Signs (Environmental Impact)
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if roads circular 3/95 "Traffic Signs to Tourist Attractions and Facilities in England" has been subject to an environmental appraisal using the guidance contained in "Policy Appraisal and the Environment", produced by the Department of the Environment; and if he will publish the appraisal. [10612]

  Mr. Watts
  The policy advice in circular roads 3/95 was developed in accordance with the guidance in "Policy Appraisal and the Environment". The circular itself makes it clear that consideration of environmental factors is an on-going process in signing policy decisions. We will consider whether to publish additional material in the light of developments.
  174
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what procedures have been put in place by his Department to monitor the environmental impacts arising from the implementation of roads circular 3/95 "Traffic Signs to Tourist Attractions and Facilities in England". [10615]

  Mr. Watts
  Arrangements for monitoring are still under discussion with other interested Government Departments, including the Department of the Enviornment.

  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what alternative courses of action from those listed in roads circular 3/95 "Traffic Signs to Tourist Attractions and Facilities in England" were considered in the environmental appraisal undertaken by his Department. [10613]

  Mr. Watts
  The purpose of the circular is to develop existing traffic signing policy and practice in an environmentally acceptable way. It empowers local authorities to take appropriate decisions in individual cases in the light of local circumstances, bearing in mind environmental and other factors.

  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how roads circular 3/95 "Traffic Signs to Tourist Attractions and Facilities in England" was modified by the results of the environmental appraisal undertaken by his Department. [10614]

  Mr. Watts
  Following public consultation, the circular was modified to give greater prominence to environmental factors.

  Mobile Phones
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many of the mobile phones which have been supplied to his Department in each of the last eight years have been cloned; and on what dates. [11014]

  Mr. Norris
  Eleven mobile phones have been cloned as follows:

  Number

  Date

  Central Transport Group

  4

  January 1995

  1

  May 1995

  1

  November 1995

  Highways Agency

  3

  September 1995

  Driving Standards Agency

  1

  April 1995

  Coastguard Agency

  1

  April 1993

  National Rail Information System
  Mr Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what obligations(a) franchisees already appointed and (b) potential franchisees are under (i) to participate in and (ii) to fund, a national rail information system; and if he will make a statement. [11519]

  Mr. Watts
  Existing and potential franchisees are already required to participate in a national railway information scheme. All train-operating companies on the
  175
  domestic passenger railway are members of a contractually binding scheme, administered by the Association of Train Operating Companies, which requires them, among other things, to provide the full range of information contained in the national railway timetable. The scheme ensures the continuation of the existing network of railway telephone enquiry bureaux—TEBs—sets demanding standards for improving their performance, and requires TEBs to provide impartial information to passengers. TEBs are funded by train operators under arrangements specified in the scheme.

  British Rail is examining ways of increasing the capacity of the national telephone enquiry bureaux network. It will finalise its recommendations in due course.

  Rail Users' Consultative Committees
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many complaints were received by the rail users' consultative committees concerning quality of service in each of the past 12 months. [11520]

  Mr. Watts
  The information is not available in the form requested. The number of complaints about quality of service received by the RUCCs in the first three quarters of 1995 is as follows:

  1st quarter: 2,592 complaints

  2nd quarter: 2,209 complaints

  3rd quarter: 3,322 complaints.

  Figures for the last quarter of 1995 are not currently available.

  Seat Belts
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what advice the Department of Transport has offered to drivers of vans with regard to the wearing of seat belts; and what additional publicity on the need to wear seat belts and the value of doing so is planned. [11247]

  Mr. Norris
  Van drivers, like all drivers, are advised to wear seat belts whenever they are in their vehicles, using the legal exemptions only as far as necessary. The

  Number of emission inspections and prohibitions issued for the last three years

  1994–95

  1993–94

  1992–93

  Inspections

  Prohibitions

  Inspections

  Prohibitions

  Inspections

  Prohibitions

  HGV

  12,959

  450

  10,589

  219

  5,706

  37

  PSV

  7,292

  184

  5,165

  145

  4,647

  77

  Cars and light commercial vehicles

  70,899

  2,580

  33,103

  223

  4,759

  23

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) how much has been spent on external consultants in the tendering process of the private finance initiative in each year since its introduction(a) in real terms and (b) in cash terms disaggregated by (i) legal fees,
  176
  message is simple: seat belts save lives. We are planning a further publicity campaign for March to emphasise this fact.

  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what are the latest available annual figures for the number of deaths, serious injuries and slight injuries to van drivers and passengers; what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of seat belts in reducing injury to van occupants; what is the current seat belt wearing rate for van drivers and passengers; and what percentage of journeys made by van is exempt from the requirement that their occupants must wear seat belts because the vehicle is engaged in local deliveries. [11248]

  Mr. Norris
  Some 53 drivers and 11 passengers were killed in light goods vehicles in 1994. Some 734 drivers and 303 passengers were seriously injured and 4,552 drivers and 1,901 passengers were slightly injured in these vehicles in that year. The proportion of these not wearing seat belts is not known. A survey in October 1995 showed that 65 per cent. of drivers and 56 per cent. of van passengers were wearing belts. We do not know, however, how many of those not wearing belts were carrying out local deliveries and therefore exempt. Clearly, seat belts play a vital role in saving drivers and passengers in vans, as in other vehicles, from death and serious injury.

  Kerbside Emission Tests
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many kerbside emission tests have been undertaken by the Vehicle Inspectorate in each of the last three years; and how many notices have been issued to drivers as a result of these tests. [11243]

  Mr. Norris
  I have asked the chief executive of the Vehicle Inspectorate agency to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from R. J. Oliver to Mr. Graham Allen, dated 23 January 1996:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question about the number of kerbside emission tests in each of the last years and how many notices have been issued.
  Information is not held which differentiates between checks carried out as the roadside and those done, for instance, at operators' premises. The attached table shows the total number of special checks for emissions and the total number of prohibitions issued in each of the last three years.
  The reason for the increase in prohibition rates between 1992/3 and 1994/5 is due mainly to the introduction of objective measurement of diesel smoke.

  (ii) publicity costs, (iii) accountancy fees and (iv) management consultancy fees; [10972]

  (2) what have been the running costs relating to the tendering process of the private finance initiative in each year since its introduction (a) in real terms and (b) in

  177
  cash terms disaggregated by (i) staff costs, (ii) information technology and (iii) other costs. [10973]

  Mr. Watts
  [holding answer 22 January 1996]: Attracting private finance for infrastructure investment affects policy work throughout the Department and the related expenditure on running costs cannot be estimated in isolation.

  Departmental expenditure on external consultants engaged in work related to tendering private finance projects over the period in question is as follows:

  Expenditure (£ thousand)

  (a) 1995–96 prices

  (b) Cash terms

  (i) Legal fees

  5,950

  5,850

  (ii) Publicity costs

  50

  50

  (iii) Accountancy fees

  700

  700

  (iv) Management consultancy fees

  5,650

  5,600

  Transport Blueprint
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport which individuals and organisations have responded to the consultation exercise instigated by his Department to produce a transport blueprint for the next century; if he will make the responses publicly available; and what plans he has to issue a Green Paper on these issues. [11241]

  Sir George Young
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the replies given to him on 7 November,Official Report, column 755.

  Motorway Services
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the current cost of managing the freeholds of motorway service areas. [11192]

  Mr. Watts
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave on 16 January,Official Report, columns 498–99.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps his Department is taking to ensure that motorway service stations provide(a) adequate toilet facilities 24 hours a day and (b) disabled toilet facilities. [11631]

  Mr. Watts
  The operator of any motorway service area signposted from the motorway is required to provide a range of specified facilities 24 hours a day. The requirements include sufficient free toilets to cater reasonably for the amount of traffic using the motorway and facilities for disabled people. The Highways Agency investigates any report that these facilities are not being provided and, where necessary, takes action to ensure that the position is remedied.

  Rail Privatisation, (Isle of Wight)
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is his policy in respect of the franchising of rail services on the Isle of Wight; and if he will make a statement. [11228]
  178
  Mr. Watts
  The island line has been vested as an autonomous wholly owned subsidiary of the British Railways Board and will be franchised in accordance with the franchising director's timetable in due course.

  Minibuses
  Dr. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what provisions exist to ensure that the safety of minibuses conforms to an agreed standard, with particular reference to safe seating. [11097]

  Mr. Norris
  All minibuses are subject to the general safety requirements of the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986. Minibuses first used on or after 1 April 1988 must comply with the seating standards laid down in schedule 6 to these regulations.

  I intend to lay regulations in February which will require minibuses used specifically for the carriage of children to be fitted with a minimum of a lap belt on a forward facing seat for each child carried.

  Technology Foresight Panel
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress has been made on the recommendations of the technology foresight panel on transport; if he will list the organisations involved; and what funding his Department is providing. [11317]

  Mr. Norris
  My Department welcomes the findings of the technology foresight initiative, particularly the recommendations of the transport panel. The Department's research activities already reflect a reasonable alignment with the transport panel's recommendations, and will develop taking its findings fully into account.

  The Department aims to lend support as far as possible to the panel's two infrastructure projects: the informed traveller and urban clear zones. My officials are actively pursuing, with the members of the transport panel, how these projects can best be supported.

  My Department will be announcing shortly a new LINK research programme which will reflect the technology foresight recommendations. In addition, my Department is participating with other public and private sector organisations in a project which has been submitted for support under the foresight challenge scheme—launched by my hon. Friend the Minister for Science and Technology on 25 September 1995. However, I am not yet in a position to list any organisations or the resources involved.

  Channel Tunnel Rail Link
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to announce the result of the channel tunnel rail link competition; and if an international and domestic station will be built at Stratford as part of the channel tunnel rail link project. [10879]

  Mr. Watts
  We expect to make an announcement soon about the choice of private sector promoter for the channel tunnel rail link project. We hope to make an announcement about a station at Stratford to a similar time scale.

  Railway Freight
  Mr. Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the number and locations of railway freight handling facilities in and around London which(a) can handle containers and (b) are warehouses where goods carried by train can be broken down and forwarded by road. [10881]

  Mr. Watts
  This information is not held centrally.

  Lorry Drivers (EC Sight Testing Regulations)
  Sir Roger Moate
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received about new EC sight testing regulations for lorry drivers; if under these regulations moderately sighted drivers wearing glasses would be permitted to drive; and if he will make a statement. [10672]

  Mr. Norris
  In response to a public consultation on implementing the eyesight requirements of the second EC directive on driving licences, a wide range of representative bodies and individuals offered comments. The directive introduces a higher standard of vision without glasses for lorry, and bus drivers who need to wear them for driving, in that both eyes must have an uncorrected acuity equivalent to at least 3/60 on the Snellen scale, rather than, as at present, one eye only. On that basis, the overwhelming majority of moderately sighted drivers wearing glasses would continue to be able to drive.

  Driving Licences
  Mr. Allason
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he plans to make driving licences issued in the Republic of South Africa directly exchangeable for licences issued by the Drivers and Vehicle Licensing Agency. [10681]

  Mr. Norris
  We shall shortly be consulting on proposed changes in the law which would enable most South African driving licences to be exchanged for British ones. Subject to a satisfactory outcome, we expect these changes to come into force later this year.

  Vehicle Excise Duty Evasion
  Sir John Gorst
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many(a) prosecutions and (b) convictions for vehicle excise duty evasion there were in 1994 and 1995 in the Greater London area. [10833]

  Mr. Norris
  The information requested is as follows:1994–95
  (a) prosecutions—43,229, (b) successful convictions 40,396. 1995–96 (April-December)
  (a) prosecutions—34,190 (b) successful convictions 32,063.

  Light Rapid Transit Schemes
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what budget provisions exist for light rapid transit schemes in 1994–95; and what is planned for 1995–96. [11038]

  Mr. Norris
  There is no specific provision for the funding of light rapid transit schemes; these schemes are funded from the local transport capital budget, in 180
  competition with other types of local transport scheme. Some £60.2 million was allocated to light rapid transit schemes in 1994–95, and £67.7 million in 1995–96.

  Buses (North-west Region)
  Mr. Callaghan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what support his Department has given for the greater use of buses in the North-west region. [11039]

  Mr. Norris
  In the local transport settlement for 1996–97 my Department has allocated £9 million to the Greater Manchester transport package, and a total of £1.05 million to packages in Macclesfield, Northwich, and Preston and South Ribble. All these proposals put emphasis on measures to promote the use of buses. We shall continue to fund these initiatives in future as far as resources allow.

  Mersey Docks and. Harbour Company
  Mr. Loyden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what is the size of Her Majesty's Government's shareholding in the Mersey Docks and Harbour Company; and if he will make a statement. [10332]

  Mr. Norris
  The Government hold 12,411,795 ordinary shares in the Mersey Docks and Harbour Company. This shareholding is one of a number of residual holdings held by the Government in privatised companies. Her Majesty's Treasury announced on 19 September 1995 that it had appointed a financial adviser in connection with proposals, in 1995–96 and 1996–97, of residual equity holdings in these privatised companies. No decision has yet been taken on the timing or method of sale of the Government's shareholding in the Mersey Docks and Harbour Company.

  Mr. Loyden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what financial support Her Majesty's Government have given to the Mersey Docks and Harbour Company since 1989. [10333]

  Mr. Norris
  No direct financial support has been given by the Government since the financial reconstruction of the company in 1989.

  However, the Mersey Docks and Harbour Company is in receipt of grant aid from several schemes with the backing of the European regional development fund. Since 1989, some £13.3. million has been made available to the company for various infrastructure and regeneration projects.

  Railtrack (Station Sales)
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if it remains his policy that Railtrack should dispose of 13 independent stations; and if he will make a statement. [10310]

  Mr. Watts
  No. All stations owned by Railtrack, including the 14 major stations which it operates, will pass into the private sector with the company when it is floated in May.

  Porous Asphalt
  Mr. Redmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to increase the use of porous asphalt for road surfacing motorways and A roads. [9904]
  181
  Mr. Watts
  I have asked the chief executive of the Highways Agency to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Lawrie Haynes to Mr. Martin Redmond, dated 23 January 1996:
  As you know, the Minister for Railways and Roads, Mr. John Watts, has asked me to reply to your Parliamentary Question asking the Secretary of State for Transport, what plans he has to increase the use of porous asphalt for road surfacing motorways and 'A' roads.
  The Highways Agency has developed with industry a general specification to permit the use of porous asphalt. Its adoption is encouraged where conditions are suitable and where the benefits can be shown to outweigh the higher costs associated with its use.

  Coastguard Agency
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what proposals he is considering for further efficiency cuts in the Coastguard service; [9557]

  (2) which Coastguard offices or stations are under consideration for closure. [9558]

  Mr. Norris
  No further efficiency measures for the Coastguard agency, other than those contained in the agency's published 1995–96 business plan, have been decided. The process of considering the 1996–97 budget is currently under way.

  Driving Standards Agency
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what has been the change in the number of unprocessed applications at the Driving Standards Agency over the last two years; [10491]

  (2) what has been the average waiting time for tests from the Driving Standards Agency on a monthly basis over the last two years in each region; [10493]

  (3) what assessment has he had made of the effect of the recent reduction in the number of Driving Standards Agency regional offices from 10 to five on service levels to the public; [10437]

  (4) how many people have applied for driving tests in each month of the last two years at the Driving Standards Agency; [10438]

  (5) how many driving tests have been cancelled by the Driving Standards Agency at short notice in the last year; [10556]

  (6) what have been the annual funding and staffing levels at the Driving Standards Agency since it was established; [10492]

  (7) how much compensation has been paid to people whose driving tests have been cancelled in each of the last five years. [10436]

  Mr. Norris
  I have asked the chief executive of the Driving Standards Agency to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from B. L. Herdan to Mr. Graham Allen, dated 23 January 1996:
  DRIVING STANDARDS AGENCY SERVICES—PQS 680, 683, 688, 696, 698, 699 AND 705
  The Secretary of State for Transport has asked me to reply to your Questions about the Driving Standards Agency's services.
  PQ Numbers 680 and 696/95/96: Numbers of applications and unprocessed applications over the last two years
  182
  We have taken the reference to unprocessed applications to mean those who have applied for but not yet received a driving test. The table at Annex A shows the monthly level of applications for tests and the numbers awaiting a test at the end of each month over the last two years.
  PQ Number 683/95/96: Average waiting times
  Annex B shows the monthly average waiting time for each region over the same period. The more recent data reflects the merging of regions into our new 5 Area structure. Wales and Western were merged first; the Eastern regions (Nottingham and Cambridge) were merged with West Midlands; North West was merged with North East and the majority of South East was merged with Metropolitan (although some south eastern centres are now managed from Birmingham and some from Cardiff). We are pursuing a number of measures to improve service levels.
  PQ Number 688/95/96: Effect of reducing regional offices
  We recognise that the reorganisation changes have resulted in a number of temporary problems. These include a backlog of postal applications, misdirected mail, and poor telephone answering performance. These have been exacerbated by extremely high demand on the telephones because of the increase in queries about the new theory test and vocational test changes.
  Additional staff together with new and more efficient telephone systems are now in place which provide much better management information. We are setting higher service standards in next year's business plan and are confident that once the transition period is over the service offered by the 5 offices will be superior to that offered previously by the ten.
  PQ Numbers 698 and 705/95/96: Short notice cancellations and compensation levels
  Annex C shows the numbers of driving tests we have had to cancel at short notice, other than when the weather was too poor to enable a test to be conducted, over the last year. The following table summarises the compensation paid to customers whose tests were cancelled at short notice:

  £

  Year

  Compensation

  1990–91

  264,665

  1991–92

  244,468

  1992–93

  186,912

  1993–94

  205,853

  1994–95

  124,435

  1995–96

  179,021

  1The figure for the current year shows the amounts paid for the nine months to 31 December 1995.

  PQ Number 699/95/96: Funding and staffing levels The Agency is a non statutory on-Vote trading body whose current expenses are not classified as public expenditure. Its full costs are recovered through fees and charges and it has been producing audited commercial style accounts since 1992–93. The following table shows the Agency's net resource costs in cash prices and the numbers of full time equivalent staff employed for the five years since the Agency was established. The figures for the current year are our latest forecasts of outturn.

  Year

  Costs £000s

  Staffing

  1990–91

  49,914

  2,105

  1991–92

  51,808

  2,192

  1992–93

  50,786

  1,898

  1993–94

  48,064

  1,805

  1994–95

  48,505

  1,789

  1995–96

  50,288

  1,811

SCOTLAND

  Bail Hostels
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to establish a bail hostel in each sheriffdom in Scotland. [7752]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Accommodation for persons on bail is currently available in the sheriffdoms of Glasgow and Strathkelvin, Lothian and Borders, Grampian, Highlands and Islands, and Tayside, Central and Fife. There are plans to establish further provision within the sheriffdom of Tayside, Central and Fife. There are no plans to establish a bail hostel in every sheriffdom.

  National Museums and Galleries
  Mr. Faulds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish the attendance figures for 1995 reported by the national museums and galleries in Scotland, broken down into the individual institutions but including their substations, with figures in each case of the percentage increase or decrease on the attendance figures for 1994. [9016]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 16 January 1996]: The information is as follows:

  1995

  Percentage change since 1994

  National museums of Scotland

  1,114,587

  -0.5

  National galleries of Scotland

  901,783

  +2.0

  Figures for the national museums of Scotland relate to the Royal Museum of Scotland, the Museum of Antiquities, the Scottish Agricultural Museum, the Scottish United Services Museum, the Museum of Flight, the Museum of Costume and the Gasworks Museum. The national galleries of Scotland figures relate to the National Gallery of Scotland, the Scottish National Portrait Gallery, the Scottish National Gallery of Modern Art, National Galleries of Scotland exhibitions held in the Royal Scottish Academy and, for the first time, Duff house in Banff.

  Health Boards (Competitive Tendering)
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what guidance has been issued by his Department to(a) local authorities and (b) health board and NHS trusts in Scotland on when they should enter into a competitive tendering exercise before awarding contracts for goods or services. [9850]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  [holding answer 17 January 1996]: The Scottish Office Environment Department has issued a number of guidance circulars to local authorities on compulsory competitive tendering. In particular, circular 13/93 offers advice on the avoidance of anti-competitive behaviour. Circular 13/95 provided guidance on compulsory competitive tendering during local government reform.
  184
  Comprehensive guidance on market testing for NHS services in Scotland issued from the management executive of the NHS in Scotland to health boards and national health service trusts on 6 October 1993. This consolidated all earlier guidance which had issued since 1987 when competitive tendering was introduced in the national health service in Scotland. The guidance addresses all aspects of market testing involving non-clinical services. Separate guidance which issued in 1992 covers the circumstances in which health boards and national health service trusts are required to use contracts negotiated centrally by the supplies division of the Common Services Agency for goods, services and equipment.

  Local authorities and health boards and national health service trusts must also have regard to the EC procurement directives.

  Child Offenders
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what percentage of children made subject to a supervision requirement by a children's hearing, having been referred for a commission of an offence, reoffend within two years of the making of the order where the child remains in the community for two years after leaving a children's home or residential school. [10645]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  This information is not maintained in the form requested.

  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland in what percentage of cases referred by the police to a reporter on the grounds that a child has committed an offence are the grounds for referral accepted at a children's hearing. [10644]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Currently 30 per cent. of all cases referred to the reporter on the grounds that the child has committed an offence are subsequently referred to children's hearings. In 75 per cent. of the cases considered by hearings the grounds are accepted.

  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what is the average cost of a children's hearing per case referred(a) on offence grounds and (b) on non-offence grounds; [10646]

  (2) what is the average cost per case from referral until completion of cases referred to a reporter on offence grounds including the cost to the police, the reporter's department, social services, education and the children's hearing. [10647]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  Cost information is not collected in the form requested.

  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the average time taken between a referral by the police to a reporter on the grounds that a child has committed an offence and the case being dealt with by a children's hearing(a) where the grounds for referral are accepted and (b) where the grounds for referral are not accepted. [10643]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  This information is not maintained in the departments of reporters to children's panels.

  Private Prisons
  Mr. Galbraith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to announce the site for the new private prison; and if he will make a statement. [10299]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  No final decision about the site for the new privately financed prison has yet been made and a number of options are still under consideration. I expect that an announcement will be made in the near future.

  Residential Mobile Homes
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to assess the impact of the park home owners charter and to carry out more thorough research into the use of residential mobile homes in Scotland and the effectiveness of the legislative framework governing residential mobile homes. [10418]

  Mr. Michael Forsyth
  Research to assess the working of the park home owners charter in Scotland, England and Wales has been commissioned by the Department of the Environment from the university of Birmingham. The research findings are expected to be made available in the next few months. The need for further research into the use of residential mobile homes in Scotland will be considered in the light of these findings.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Chisholm
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the housing revenue account capital budget borrowing consent element for each council in Scotland in 1995–96. [10716]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  The information requested is set out in the table.

  Local authority housing capital allocations: 1995–96—net borrowing consent housing revenue account

  HRA £ (million)

  Borders

  Berwickshire

  0.063

  Ettrick and Lauderdale

  0.794

  Roxburgh

  1.484

  Tweeddale

  0.609

  Central

  Clackmannan

  0.467

  Falkirk

  4.338

  Stirling

  3.710

  Dumfries and Galloway

  Annandale and Eskdale

  0.943

  Nithsdale

  2.782

  Stewartry

  0.181

  Wigtown

  1.177

  Fife

  Dunfermline

  2.234

  Kirkcaldy

  1.629

  North-East Fife

  0.153

  Grampian

  Aberdeen

  0.577

  Banff and Buchan

  0.648

  Gordon

  2.337

  Kincardine and Deeside

  1.670

  Moray

  -1.549

  186

  Local authority housing capital allocations: 1995–96—net borrowing consent housing revenue account

  HRA £ (million)

  Highland

  Badenoch and Strathspey

  0.433

  Caithness

  1.082

  Inverness

  2.686

  Lochaber

  2.120

  Nairn

  0.263

  Ross and Cromarty

  2.915

  Skye and Lochalsh

  1.077

  Sutherland

  0.946

  Lothian

  East Lothian

  1.955

  Edinburgh

  19.844

  Midlothian

  2.964

  West Lothian

  0.399

  Strathclyde

  Argyll and Bute

  0.754

  Bearsden and Milngavie

  0.979

  Clydebank

  3.926

  Clydesdale

  0.874

  Cumbernauld and Kilsyth

  0.271

  Cumnock and Doon Valley

  0.967

  Cunninghame

  3.611

  Dumbarton

  4.049

  East Kilbride

  0.571

  Eastwood

  0.741

  Glasgow

  60.609

  Hamilton

  0.521

  Inverclyde

  5.048

  Kilmarnock and Loudoun

  2.460

  Kyle and Carrick

  0.448

  Monklands

  4.350

  Motherwell

  5.886

  Renfrew

  10.066

  Strathkelvin

  2.399

  Tayside

  Angus

  0.897

  Dundee

  9.757

  Perth and Kinross

  1.225

  Island areas

  Orkney

  -0.043

  Shetland

  2.949

  Western Isles

  2.636

  Scotland

  186.882

  Crofter Building Grants and Loan Scheme
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list for each year from 1989–90 to 1994–95 (i) how many(a) new homes and (b) improvements were provided through the crofter building grants and loan scheme and (ii) what levels of (A) grants and (B) loans were provided through the scheme. [10904]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  The information is set out in the table.
  187

  Number of applications approved

  Financial year

  1989–90

  1990–91

  1991–92

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  (a) New houses

  109

  126

  122

  148

  143

  132

  (b) Improved houses

  237

  210

  156

  179

  16

  139

  The levels of assistance available under the scheme were increased on 16th May 1990

  Levels of grant and loan assistance

  Former maximum (pre 16 May 1990 £

  Present maximum £

  New houses:

  Grant

  8,700

  11,500

  Loan

  13,500

  17,500

  Improve houses:

  Grant

  1,500

  2,000

  Loan

  8,000

  10,500

  Housing Finance
  Mr. Chisholm
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the Scottish Homes budget in 1995–96 for publication and promotion. [10714]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  It is £800,000.

  Mr. Chisholm
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if he will list the proposed housing revenue account capital budget borrowing consent minimum and maximum levels for each council in Scotland in 1996–97; [10719]

  (2) if he will list the resource planning assumptions for each council in Scotland for its 1996–97 housing revenue account capital budget. [10715]

  Mr. Robertson
  No decisions have been taken yet on the housing revenue account capital budget borrowing consent levels for individual councils in Scotland for 1996–97. These will depend on the final estimates of capital receipts which authorities are expected to achieve in 1996–97 which are currently the subject of consultation.

  The information on resource planning assumptions for each council in Scotland for 1996–97 is set out in the table.

  HRA resource planning assumptions

  £ million

  Authority

  lower provision1

  1996–97 Central provision

  Upper provision

  Aberdeen City

  11.1

  12.2

  13.1

  Aberdeenshire

  10.1

  10.3

  11.1

  Angus

  3.5

  4.1

  4.4

  Argyll and Bute

  2.8

  3.7

  4.0

  Clackmannan

  2.7

  3.3

  3.6

  Dumfries and Galloway

  8.6

  9.3

  10.0

  Dundee City

  12.3

  13.5

  14.5

  East Ayrshire

  6.5

  7.4

  8.0

  East Dunbartonshire

  2.3

  3.0

  3.2

  East Lothian

  4.7

  5.2

  5.6

  East Renfrewshire

  0.9

  1.9

  2.0

  Edinburgh City

  22.4

  24.1

  26.0

  Falkirk

  9.7

  10.8

  11.6

  Fife

  13.0

  13.9

  15.0

  188

  HRA resource planning assumptions

  £ million

  Authority

  lower provision1

  1996–97 Central provision

  Upper provision

  Glasgow City

  64.4

  69.6

  75.0

  Highland Region

  14.2

  14.7

  15.8

  Inverclyde

  6.4

  7.4

  8.0

  Midlothian

  3.9

  4.4

  4.7

  Moray

  3.4

  3.9

  4.2

  North Ayrshire

  6.2

  6.7

  7.2

  North Lanarkshire

  24.5

  26.7

  28.8

  Orkney

  0.5

  0.6

  0.6

  Perthshire and Kinross

  4.5

  5.2

  5.6

  Renfrewshire

  14.0

  14.4

  15.5

  Scottish Borders

  4.2

  4.9

  5.3

  Shetland

  3.1

  3.4

  3.7

  South Ayrshire

  5.0

  5.6

  6.0

  South Lanarkshire

  8.9

  10.4

  11.2

  Stirling

  5.5

  6.1

  6.6

  West Dunbartonshire

  9.0

  9.3

  10.0

  West Lothian

  5.3

  6.2

  6.7

  Western Isles

  2.4

  2.8

  3.0

  Scotland

  295.8

  325.0

  350.0

  1Represents 70 per cent forward commitment.

  Pregnant Women Prisoners
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if pregnant women prisoners are handcuffed while in labour and during childbirth; and if he will make a statement; [9024]

  (2) if he will make a statement about the supervision of pregnant women prisoners; and if he will place in the Library a copy of the guidelines issued to the Prison Service on this issue. [9025]

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

  Letter from E. W. Frizzell to Dr. Norman A. Godman, dated 23 January 1996:
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton has asked me to reply to your two Questions about the handcuffing and supervision of pregnant women prisoners.
  All security category A and B prisoners, including women prisoners, who are required to be taken outside the prison are subject to security precautions including the use of handcuffs. However women prisoners would not be handcuffed whilst in labour, and staff would be expected, with the approval of the prison Governor, to have regard to individual circumstances in the supervision which would apply.

  Fishing (Norwegian Territorial Waters)
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his answer of 2 November,Official Report, column 461, what were the total landings of fish caught in Norwegian territorial waters by (a) United Kingdom-registered fishing vessels and (b) other

  189
  European Union fishing vessels; and what were the species of fish included in these landings in (i) 1992, (ii) 1993 and (iii) 1994. [9413]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  The table shows landings by UK vessels from the Norwegian exclusive economic zone by species for 1992, 1993 and 1994. Information from other member states in the same form is not available.

  Landings by UK vessels from the Norwegian exclusive economic zone

  Liveweight (tonnes)

  Species

  1992

  1993

  1994

  Bass

  0.0

  —

  —

  Blue mouths

  —

  —

  0.0

  Blue ling

  1.9

  0.2

  —

  Bream

  6.8

  —

  0.4

  Brill

  15.4

  13.3

  8.4

  Catfish

  663.7

  671.9

  528.6

  Cod

  12,351.6

  15,164.2

  18,710.5

  Conger eel

  0.0

  0.0

  0.0

  Cuttlefish

  0.0

  0.1

  —

  Dabs, other

  8.9

  25.2

  20.5

  Dory or John dory

  —

  0.0

  —

  Dogfish, spurdog

  730.1

  304.1

  86.6

  Flounders or flukes

  —

  0.1

  —

  Gurnard and ratchet

  1.2

  2.0

  1.0

  Haddock

  7,978.8

  11,638.7

  14,939.6

  Hake

  86.1

  51.6

  41.5

  Halibut

  34.4

  24.3

  35 0

  Halibut, Greenland

  4.0

  2.2

  16.3

  Herring

  102.6

  0.2

  398.4

  Lemon soles

  571.4

  500.6

  518.2

  Ling

  458.5

  579.3

  418.4

  Mackerel

  0.5

  968.6

  0.7

  Megrims

  24.7

  17.7

  20.0

  Monks or anglers

  638.0

  727 1

  770 0

  Mullet grey

  0.1

  0.0

  0.0

  Mullet, red

  0.0

  0.0

  —

  Nephrops (Norway lobster)

  22.0

  59.9

  59.7

  Octopus

  —

  0.1

  —

  Pilchards

  —

  0.0

  —

  Plaice

  4,088.5

  4,010.2

  3,696.7

  Pollack

  566.1

  566.8

  313.1

  Queen scallops

  0.1

  —

  —

  Roundnose grenadier

  —

  0.0

  —

  Redfish

  224.5

  482.7

  123.0

  Saithe

  2,284.5

  1,444.4

  1,495.1

  Sandeels

  143.0

  —

  1,194.9

  Scallops

  2.5

  —

  0.0

  Sharks

  0.9

  0.7

  0.8

  Shrimps

  —

  10.9

  —

  Skates and rays

  29.4

  20.6

  13.1

  Soles

  10.5

  10.6

  0.5

  Tope

  0.0

  0.4

  0.0

  Torsk (tusk)

  23.9

  16.4

  28.5

  Turbot

  101.2

  103.8

  118.5

  Whiting

  2,748.2

  1,999.1

  1,483.5

  Whiting, pout

  0.0

  0.0

  —

  Witches

  177.8

  163.6

  182.7

  Mixed or other demersal

  65.5

  54.4

  58.5

  Whelks

  0.7

  5.2

  1.6

  Clams (mixed)

  —

  —

  0.0

  Crabs, cancer pagurus

  0.0

  0.0

  0.4

  Squid, loligo

  7.0

  3.3

  0.1

  Other crustaceans

  —

  0.1

  —

  190

  Landings by UK vessels from the Norwegian exclusive economic zone

  Liveweight (tonnes)

  Species

  1992

  1993

  1994

  Livers

  —

  0.6

  0.1

  Roes

  46.7

  53.1

  16.9

  Total

  34,221.7

  39,698.3

  45,301.8

  Student Grants
  Mrs. Liddell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many postgraduate social work students have received grants at the discretion of the Secretary of State for Scotland in each of the years 1990 to 1995. [10775]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  None. The responsibility for providing student support for Scottish domiciled students undertaking postgraduate studies in social work was transferred to the Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work with effect from academic year 1990–91. This enabled the council to operate a uniform UK-wide policy in its area of responsibility.

  Mrs. Liddell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the regulations on the award of student grants in Scotland. [10777]

  Mr. Robertson
  Grants to Scottish domiciled students undertaking full-time courses of higher education are offered under the Students' Allowances (Scotland) Regulations 1991 (SI 1991 No. 1522), as amended. The regulations are made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State under powers contained in the Education (Scotland) Act 1980.

  Mrs. Liddell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans there are to bring the criteria for award of student grants for postgraduate students in Scotland in line with the provisions for England and Wales. [10778]

  Mr. Robertson
  For subjects where awards for postgraduate study in England and Wales are subject to national criteria, the arrangements in Scotland are already broadly in line, subject to minor variations to meet Scottish circumstances. Where the award in England and Wales is at the discretion of the local education authority, arrangements can vary and alignment is not possible.

  Mrs. Liddell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what financial assistance is available to postgraduate students in Scotland; and what plans there are to extend the availability of the student loans scheme to postgraduate students. [10776]

  Mr. Robertson
  The standard rates of means-tested maintenance allowance for non-loan-bearing postgraduate courses in the academic year 1995–96 are:

  £2,690: for students living in a hall of residence or in lodgings and attending establishments outside the London area.

  £3,295: as above, but attending an establishment in the London area

  £1,965: for students living at their parents' home.

  Additional weeks' allowances are payable for attendance exceeding 30 weeks and three days. Tuition fees are also payable without means testing.
  191
  There are no plans to extend the availability of loans to postgraduate students other than those undertaking PGCE courses who already qualify, and receive the lower undergraduate maintenance rates. Unlike those at undergraduate level, postgraduate rates of maintenance grant have been uprated annually in line with inflation in recent years.

  Mrs. Liddell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the criteria for the award of student grants in Scotland relating to postgraduate students. [10779]

  Mr. Robertson
  To be eligible for an award a student must generally have been ordinarily resident in the British islands for at least three years preceding 31 August of the year in which the course, or continuous series of courses, starts and also be ordinarily resident in Scotland on 30 June of that year.

  Under the postgraduate students' allowances scheme, an award may be offered to an eligible student who has completed a first degree or comparable course and who then wishes to take a short, usually one-year, course of professional or vocational training. Not all postgraduate diploma courses are covered by the scheme and, outwith the fields of science and technology, engineering and teacher training, the numbers of awards available are limited by quota and eligible students compete for assistance. There are also restrictions related to previous study at postgraduate level.

  Under the Scottish studentship scheme, support is offered to a limited number of eligible students who wish to undertake postgraduate higher degree study in the arts and humanities. Applicants must hold either a first class or a very good second class honours degree. The number of applications received significantly exceeds the studentship awards available each year and the successful candidates are selected on merit by a committee of academics appointed from Scottish universities.

  These arrangements are set out more fully in the booklet "Student Grants in Scotland—A Guide to Postgraduate Allowances." I am sending a copy to the hon. Member and copies have been placed in the Library.

  Mobile Phones
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many of the mobile telephones which have been supplied to his Department in each of the last eight years have been cloned; and on what dates. [11006]

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

  Year

  Instances of Cloning

  Dates

  1994

  4

  1December

  02 December

  220 December

  1995

  14

  1 2January 1995

  01 May

  03 May

  206 May

  10 May

  13 May

  192

  Year

  Instances of Cloning

  Dates

  16 May

  19 May

  1June

  1September

  06 September

  14 December

  1Day unrecorded.

  2Two clonings on same date.

  There were no instances of cloning in the previous six years.

  Rural Scotland White Paper
  Mr. Charles Kennedy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will invite representatives of the Scottish Crofters Union to join the Scottish National Rural Partnership to discuss his White Paper "Rural Scotland: People, Prosperity and Partnership"; and if he will make a statement. [10685]

  Mr. Kynoch
  To date, invitations to serve on the Scottish National Rural Partnership have been limited to organisations with a national remit or, in the case of Scottish Enterprise and Highlands and Islands Enterprise, to the two bodies which, taken together, have the national remit. However, my right hon. Friend would be prepared to consider any request from the Scottish Crofters Union to join the Scottish National Rural Partnership.

  Forth Road Bridge
  Mr. Wilson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland on which date the capital cost of the Forth road bridge is expected to be paid off; and if he will make a statement on(a)his intentions for tolling thereafter and (b) the future allocation of toll revenues. [11517]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The Forth Road Bridge Order Confirmation Act 1958 provides for income from bridge tolls to be used to service and repay loans, including those in respect of the capital cost of the bridge, and to pay for its operation, maintenance and repair. It also provides for tolling to continue until adequate provision is made for the latter. The capital cost of the bridge has been fully paid off.

  The tolling period was extended in 1993 to 28 May 1998 to provide for essential strengthening and other maintenance works. The Forth transport working group, comprising representatives of the Forth Road Bridge joint board, Fife and Lothian regional councils and the Scottish Office, is examining future tolling arrangements as part of a wider consideration of transport issues across the Forth. The group will report to the Secretary of State and the convenors of the regional councils in due course.

  NHS (Public Relations Officers)
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many public relations officers are employed by the NHS management executive in Scotland; and what was the annual expenditure by the NHS management executive for each financial year since 1987 on(a) public relations, (b) communications and (c) marketing. [11164]
  193
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  There are no public relations officers employed by or in the NHS management executive in Scotland. A team of three whole-time equivalent information officers in the Scottish Office's information directorate reporting to a chief press officer provide advice and support to Ministers, the management executive and the remainder of the Scottish Office Department of Health on issues relating to health and to the national health service. There is no identifiable expenditure by the NHSME since 1987 which is readily attributable to(a) public relations, (b) communications and (c) marketing.

  Monofilament Nets
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the areas he has identified as unsuitable for the use of monofilament nets for(a) conservation reasons and (b) because the area is used for sports diving. [11159]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  No such areas have been identified.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many responses to the recent consultation on the carriage of monofilament gill nets recommended that the use of such nets should be monitored to assess their impact on marine wildlife. [11156]

  Mr. Robertson
  Five respondents made such a recommendation.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what consultations he has had with representatives of scuba divers in relation to ending the ban on the carriage and use of monofilament nets. [11158]

  Mr. Robertson
  Since announcing the outcome of consultations on the proposed ending of the ban on large mesh monofilament gill nets, I have received representations from diving interests, whose views have been noted.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland which organisations and individuals were consulted prior to changing the Inshore Fishing (Prohibition of the Carriage of Monofilament Gill Nets) (Scotland) Order 1986; and how many responses were(a) in favour of and (b) against changing the legislation. [11160]

  Mr. Robertson
  The following organisations and individuals were consulted on the proposed derogation to the Inshore Fishing (Prohibition of the Carriage of Monofilament Gill Nets) (Scotland) Order 1986:

  The Salmon Net Fishing Association of Scotland

  The Atlantic Salmon Trust Ltd.

  The Tay Salmon Fisheries Co. Ltd.

  Fishmongers' Company

  Salmon and Trout Association (Scottish Council)

  Scottish Natural Heritage

  The Salmon and Trout Association

  The Forth Fishery Conservation Trust

  Association of Scottish District Salmon Fishery Boards

  River Tweed Commissioners

  Association of Chief Police Officers (Scotland)

  Hook Towe

  Scottish Fishermen's Federation

  Sea Fish Industry Authority

  194

  Mallaig and North West Fisherman's Association

  Shetland Fishermen's Association

  Forth Fishermen's Association

  Scottish Pelagic Fishermen's Association

  Scottish Whitefish Producers Organisation

  Herring Buyers Association

  Aberdeen Fish Producers Organisation Ltd.

  North East of Scotland Fish Producers Organisation

  Fife Fish Producers Organisation Ltd.

  Orkney Fishermen's Association

  Western Isles Fishermen's Association

  Highlands and Islands Enterprise

  Scottish Fishermen's Organisation

  Shetland Fish Producers Organisation

  Ullapool Boat Owners' Association

  Scottish Fish Merchants's Federation

  British Boatbuilders' Association

  Fishing Co-operative

  Fish Traders' Association

  Highlands and Islands Fishermen's Association (SG)

  Eyemouth and District Fishermen's Association

  Clyde Fishermen's Association

  J and W Stuart

  A W Harkiss

  Duthie Trawlers

  Sicor International Ltd.

  Seawire Services Ltd.

  Jackson Trawls Ltd.

  Harvest Trawls

  Pisces

  Seaway Nets

  Calley Nets

  Scotnet

  T Nets

  Faithlie Trawls

  Catchmore Macduff Ltd.

  Alf Wallace Nets

  John Noble Esq.

  LHD Net Mending

  Oceansafe

  Whalsay Trawl Nets

  Nautilus Consultants

  Royal Society for the Protection of Birds

  Skye and Lochalsh Fishermen's Association

  Shetland Fish Processors Association

  Arbroath Fishermen's Association

  Scottish Fisheries Protection Agency

  Fife Fishermen's Association

  Shetland Fish Products Ltd.

  Macduff Shipyards Limited

  Aberdeen Fish Curers and Merchants Association Ltd.

  Scottish Wildlife and Countryside Link

  World Wide Fund for Nature

  Anglo-Scottish Fish Producers Organisation

  Scottish Pelagic Fishermen's Association Ltd.

  Loch Linnhe Fishermen's Association

  UFS Ltd.

  Grampian Seafood Project

  195

  West of Scotland Fish Producers' Organisation

  Northern Ireland Fishermen's Federation

  North Irish Sea Fishermen's Federation

  Association of Sea Fisheries Committees

  Fleetwood Fish Producers Organisation

  Cornish Fish Producers Organisation

  UK Association of Fish Producers Organisation

  Fish Producers Organisation Ltd.

  UK Association of Frozen Food Producers

  Grimsby Fish Producers Organisation

  Mudeford and District Fishermen's Association

  Lowestoft Fish Procedures Organisation Ltd.

  Southern Commercial Fishermen

  South Western Fish Producers Organisation

  Fishermen's Federation of Northumberland

  Yorkshire and Anglia Fish Producers Organisation

  Ken Bell International Ltd.

  States of Guernsey SFC

  States of Jersey, Department of Agriculture and Fisheries

  Department of Agriculture Fisheries and Forestry, Isle of Man

  Joint Nature Conservation Committee

  English Nature

  Wildlife and Countryside Link

  Twenty-seven responses were received, of which 16 were in favour of the proposed change, five were not opposed to it but had some qualifications, and four were opposed to it in varying degrees. Two respondents offered no view.

  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what measures he has instigated to prevent large-mesh monofilament nets presenting a threat to marine wildlife; [11163]

  (2) what monitoring will be established to assess the impact of large-mesh monofilament nets upon marine wildlife in Scottish waters. [11157]

  Mr. Robertson
  Arrangements for monitoring the by-catch of cetaceans in fishing nets are already in place and these will be extended to any large-mesh monofilament gill nets.

  Porpoises
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what measures his Department is taking to meet its commitments to protect the harbour porpoises in Scottish waters(a) under the biodiversity action plan and (b) under the habitats directive. [11162]

  Mr. Raymond S. Robertson
  The harbour porpoise is a protected species under relevant provisions of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and the Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 1994, which make provision for the implementation of Council direction 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora. The report of the biodiversity action 196
  plan steering group submitted to the Government in December 1995 contains a suggested action plan for the conservation of the harbour porpoise. The Government will be responding to this report in the spring.

  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 that its employees are not subjected to victimisation. [11204]

  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton
  The chairmen and boards of NHS trusts are accountable to the Secretary of State via the management executive of the NHS in Scotland. Each trust is responsible for managing its own industrial relations and other personnel matters.

  A copy of the policy and procedures for the resolution of differences between the Scottish Ambulance Service NHS trust and its employees is in the Library of the House. Disputes which cannot be resolved through this mechanism may be pursued through other appropriate channels, including industrial tribunals.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Rail Privatisation
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress has been made in introducing a private element into the management and operation of Northern Ireland Railways; and if he will make a statement. [11250]

  Mr. Moss
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) on 18 May 1995,Official Report, column 355. Consultants commissioned by the Northern Ireland Transport Holding Company have, this month, presented their final report dealing with the sale of non-core businesses and opportunities for market testing and contracting out of Northern Ireland Railway's activities. The Northern Ireland Transport Holding Company will now take forward the consultant's recommendations.

  Public Meeting Halls (Attacks)
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list(a) the Orange halls, (b) the churches and church halls indicating the denomination, (c) the Gaelic Athletics Association premises and (d) other halls, which suffered from (i) arson and (ii) other attacks which resulted in damage in each of the last two years, indicating in each case (1) the date, (2) the location of the premises, (3) the cost of repairing the damage and (4) if compensation was paid. [11004]

  Sir John Wheeler
  The information is not available in the form requested and could be obtained only at
  disproportionate cost. The Compensation Agency has been able to produce lists of claims lodged on Church properties, orange halls and GAA properties damaged giving date of incident, cause and the amount of settlement. Copies of the lists have been placed in the Library.

ENVIRONMENT

  Building Regulations
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what advice he has given to the Building Regulations Advisory Committee on the likely timetable for implementation of proposed amendments to part M of the Building Regulations. [10265]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  Papers setting out my Department's views on a programme of work on various aspects of the building regulations, including part M, were discussed by the Building Regulations Advisory Committee at meetings in June and October last year. These papers included possible implementation dates taking into account, among other things, the time needed for consultation and analysis. Decisions on the timetable for individual items will depend on the rate of progress achieved at each stage.

  Water and Sewerage
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many non-domestic customers in each of the water and sewerage areas pay separate bills for sewerage on the basis of the rateable value of their premises. [9943]

  Mr. Clappison
  This information is not held centrally.

  Homelessness
  Mr. McAvoy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what is his current estimate of the total number of homeless people in England. [10754]

  Mr. Clappison
  Local authorities in England provide data to my Department about their activities under the homelessness provisions of the Housing Act 1985 on the quarterly PI(E) return. Summary figures based on these returns are published in a quarterly information bulletin entitled "Households found accommodation under the homelessness provisions of the 1985 Housing Act: England". The latest bulletin was released on 11 December and gives figures up to the third quarter of 1995; a copy is in the Library.

  Housing Stock
  Mr. McAvoy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what proportion of the total housing stock in England is derelict or uninhabitable. [10755]

  Mr. Clappison
  The 1991 English house condition survey found 7.6 per cent. of dwellings in England to be unfit for human habitation under section 604 of the Housing Act 1985, as amended by schedule 9 to the Local Government and Housing Act 1989. Some 3 per cent. of these unfit dwellings were derelict at the time of the survey.

  Conservation
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what procedures are followed when an application for a drought order is made which could potentially damage a special protection area designated under the European birds directive. [10241]
  198
  Mr. Clappison
  [holding answer 22 January 1996]: In England and Wales, the National Rivers Authority is notified of applications for drought orders. Under section 17 of the Water Resources Act 1991 it must, except in an emergency, consult the relevant nature conservation agency if the proposal is likely to damage the special features of a site of special interest, including all special protection areas.

  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what procedures are in place to review existing abstraction licences which could be potentially damaging to(a) a special protection area designated under the European birds directive and (b) a special area of conservation designated under the habitats directive. [10243]

  Mr. Clappison
  [holding answer 22 January 1996]: In England and Wales the National Rivers Authority has a statutory duty under section 17 of the Water Resources Act 1991 to consult the nature conservation agencies before carrying out or authorising any works, operations or activities which appear to the authority to be likely to affect adversely those sites of special interest which have been notified to the authority by one of the statutory notifying authorities. All special protection areas and, in future, special areas of conservation will be notified as such sites.

  In August 1995, the NRA and English Nature signed a memorandum of understanding regarding a joint approach to river sites of special scientific interest, covering the production of a conservation strategy and consenting, licensing, protocol. This will also apply other habitats, SPAs and in due course, SACs. In addition, English Nature has agreed to provide a priority list of SPAs and SACs potentially vulnerable to certain activities, including the effect of abstraction. This will be used by the NRA in a planned programme for reviewing existing abstraction licences.

  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what legal instruments are in place which require an assessment of environmental impacts of(a) new abstraction licences, (b) variations to existing abstraction licences and (c) a drought order. [10242]

  Mr. Clappison
  [holding answer 22 January 1996]: In England and Wales, the National Rivers Authority is the competent authority for issuing or varying abstraction licences and will comment as necessary on applications for drought orders. Relevant legislation includes the Water Resources Act 1991 sections 2(2), 4, 15, 16 and 19. In some cases, development proposals including abstractions fall within the remit of the environment assessment regulations and in these instances a full environmental statement will be required.

  Where the environmental assessment regulations do not apply, the NRA requires an environmental report when it considers that the proposed abstraction would have more than a negligible impact.

  In the case of new abstractions of variations to existing abstractions which may damage the special features of a site of special interest, the NRA is required under section 17 of the Water Resources Act 1991 to consult the relevant nature conservation agency. Under the Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 1994 the NRA, as a competent authority, is required to review

  199
  authorisations, including abstraction licences, which might affect the integrity of special protection areas and special areas of conservation.

  Wild Animal Imports
  Mr. Tony Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what number and species of terrapins have been imported under the provisions of the convention on international trade in endangered species since 1990. [10154]

  Mr. Clappison
  [holding answer 22 January 1996]: Only one species of terrapin listed in CITES has been imported into the United Kingdom since 1990. Two hundred specimens of Pelomedusa subrufra—Marsh terrapin—were imported in 1991, and 10 in 1995.

  Mr. Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many dangerous wild animals as defined by statute were imported into the United Kingdom during 1995; and how many exotic animals and reptiles were imported. [10156]

  Mr. Clappison
  [holding answer 22 January 1996]: In 1995, 2,250 live specimens of species listed on the Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976, as amended, were imported into the United Kingdom.

  Total figures for the import of exotic species are not available. In 1994—the latest year for which data are available—43,495 specimens of live animals, including reptiles, listed under the convention on international trade in endangered species were imported into the UK.

  Mr. Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many American box turtles were imported into the United Kingdom in 1995. [10155]

  Mr. Clappison
  [holding answer 22 January 1996]: Six Coahuila box turtles—Terrapene coahuila—were imported into the United Kingdom in 1995.

  Recycling Projects (Local Authorities)
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much money was made available to local authorities through supplementary credit approvals with respect to recycling projects in each year since 1991–92, and the amount which is forecast to be made available to local authorities in each of the next three years. [10351]

  Mr. Curry
  [holding answer 22 January 1996]: Provision for the recycling supplementary credit approval programme was £12 million for 1991–92, £15 million for each of the next three years, and is £16.4 million for 1995–96. Planned provision for 1996–97 is £10 million. In addition, from next year local recycling initiatives are likely to benefit from expenditure by environmental trusts established in consequence of the landfill tax as well as from increased industry funding as a consequence of the producer responsibility for packaging initiative. With regard to 1997–98 and beyond, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State explained in his statement on the rate support grant on 30 November 1995, Official Report, column 1338, we will shortly be consulting on the scope for bringing challenge funding more broadly to bear on local authority capital spending in future years, including SCAs for recycling. This should give greater scope for
  200
  authorities that are keen to make major investment in recycling infrastructure, alongside the growing activities of industry and voluntary groups.

  Sewerage and Water Service Bills
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what impact the last revaluation of rateable values of non-domestic premises for unified business rate purposes has had on bills for sewerage, drainage and water issued by sewerage undertakers in areas where sewerage and water services are provided by separate companies. [10457]

  Mr. Clappison
  [holding answer 22 January 1996]: Most sewerage undertakers use the general rating valuation list as at 31 March 1990 for charging unmeasured non-domestic premises. For those few companies that use the unified business rate as a basis of charging for water, sewerage and drainage, the impact on bills would vary from customer to customer.

  Drought (Yorkshire)
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will now publish the inspector's report of the public inquiry held into the drought in Yorkshire in November. [10769]

  Mr. Clappison
  [holding answer 22 January 1996]: Copies of the inspector's report are available by applying to the Government office for Yorkshire and Humberside, PO Box 213, City house, New Station street, Leeds LS1 4JU.

  River Derwent Emergency Drought Order
  Mr. Morley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the environmental impact on the Lower Derwent valley of the proposed River Derwent emergency drought order. [10734]

  Mr. Clappison
  [holding answer 22 January 1996]: The hearing arranged to consider the application and the objections to it was postponed at Yorkshire Water's request. When the hearing takes place, the environmental impact will be one of the issues to be considered by the inspector in preparing his report.

  Minerals Planning Guidance
  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) how the final draft minerals planning guidance note 1 "General Considerations and the Development Plan System" was modified by the results of the environmental appraisal undertaken by his Department; [10605]

  (2) if the final draft minerals planning guidance note 1 "General Considerations and the Development Plan System" has been subject to an environmental appraisal using the guidance contained in his Department's document "Policy Appraisal and the Environment"; and if he will publish the appraisal; [10603]

  (3) what procedures have been put in place by his Department to monitor the environmental impacts arising from the implementation of the final draft minerals

  201
  planning guidance note 1 "General Considerations and the Development Plan System"; [10606]

  (4) what alternative courses of action from those detailed in the final draft minerals planning guidance note 1 "General Considerations and the Development Plan System" were considered in the environmental appraisal undertaken by his Department. [10604]

  Mr. Robert B. Jones
  "Policy Appraisal and the Environment" sets out an approach whereby environmental effects can be taken into account in policy development, while recognising that this will vary from case to case depending on the complexity and significance of the impacts. Minerals planning guidance note 1, general considerations and the development plan system, sets out the Government's policy on various issues concerning planning for minerals in England, including how policies for mineral extraction can be more consistent with the principles of sustainable development. This is being revised and developed following widespread consultation on a draft. It seeks to strike a balance between the aim of ensuring a supply of minerals and the need to protect the environment and conserve minerals as far as possible.

  The final draft consultation document includes many modifications to the first draft reflecting the views expressed by environmental organisations and others. I do not intend to publish a separate environmental appraisal in addition to the draft advice already published and the final guidance when completed. The Government will monitor the effectiveness of the policy guidance through regular liaison with minerals planning authorities and other bodies and the Deparment's research programme.

  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if(a) the forthcoming housing discussion paper, (b) draft planning policy guidance note "Countryside and the Rural Economy", (c) the forthcoming annual review of the United Kingdom sustainable development strategy and (d) the forthcoming draft planning policy guidance note 1 "General Policy and Principles" will be subject to an environmental appraisal in accordance with the guidance contained in his document "Policy Appraisal and the Environment"; and if he will make a statement. [10617]

  Mr. Clappison
  (a) No. The housing discussion paper is a consultation document. (b) and (d) environmental impacts are being fully considered during the revision of PPG7, "The Countryside and the Rural Economy", and PPG1, "General Policy and Principles". (c) No. "This Common Inheritance: UK annual report 1996" will not itself set new policies. I fully endorse the need for environmental impacts to be taken into account in the development of new policy.

  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if the White Paper "Making Waste Work" has been subject to an environmental appraisal using the guidance contained in his Department's document "Policy Appraisal and the Environment"; and if he will publish the appraisal; [10599]

  (2) what procedures have been put in place by his Department to monitor the environmental impacts arising from the implementation of the White Paper "Making Waste Work"; [10602]
  202
  (3) what alternative courses of action from those detailed in the White Paper "Making Waste Work" were considered in the environmental appraisal undertaken by his Department; [10600]

  (4) how the White Paper "Making Waste Work" was modified by the results of the environmental appraisal undertaken by his Department. [10601]

  Mr. Clappison
  It would not have been appropriate to undertake an environmental appraisal, using the guidance contained in "Policy Appraisal and the Environment", in relation to the White Paper "Making Waste Work". The White Paper sets out our strategy for achieving more sustainable waste management and includes a range of waste management practices. It emphasises that the choice of a waste management method for a particular waste stream will be guided by the principle of using the best practicable environmental option which would take into account both the environmental and economic costs and benefits of different methods of waste management.

  Indeed, such an appraisal could be undertaken only on the basis of reliable statistical information which is equally true of monitoring environmental impacts. The White Paper acknowledges that much of the necessary information is not readily available or is available with insufficient precision to enable reliable estimates to be made. An important part of the waste strategy is, therefore, to ensure that better information relating to waste is available and the White Paper sets out how this will be achieved.

  Ms Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if the forthcoming rural White Paper, annual review, will be subject to an environmental appraisal in accordance with the guidance contained in "Policy Appraisal and the Environment", published by the Department of the Environment; and if he will publish the environmental appraisal. [10616]

  Mr. Clappison
  A progress report on the commitments contained within the rural White Paper, "Rural England: A Nation Committed to a Living Countryside", will be produced later this year. Environmental impacts will be taken into account in following up the commitments contained within the White Paper.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many councils will have to reduce their capital spending as a result of the new rent capping proposals. [10507]

  Mr. Clappison
  If local authorities budget sensibly, they should be able to maintain their existing revenue contributions to housing revenue account capital expenditure.

  Mr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the amount of credit approvals to fund local authority capital spending on housing in each of the last five years; what is his forecast for 1996–97 and 1997–98; and if he will express each statistic in(a) real terms and (b) as a percentage change on the previous year. [10500]
  203
  Mr. Clappison
  The figures are provided in the table.

  Year

  Local authority credit approvals (cash £ million)

  Local authority credit approvals at 1994–95 prices (£ million)

  Percentage change on the previous year (in cash terms)

  1991–92 (outturn)

  1,441

  1,572

  —

  1992–93 (outturn)

  1,194

  1,252

  -17

  1993–94 (outturn)

  1,120

  1,141

  -6

  1994–95 (outturn)

  872

  872

  -22

  1995–96 (est outturn)

  869

  846

  0

  1996–97 (plans)

  789

  747

  -9

  1997–98 (plans)

  752

  695

  -5

  These figures exclude credit approvals for the estate action scheme, which has been subsumed into the single regeneration budged; the scheme has been grant-funded since 1995–96. The supplementary credit approvals issued to provide cover for specified capital grants are also excluded.

  Mr. Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how much revenue local authorities will lose in 1996–97 following the introduction of the new housing revenue account subsidy system. [10503]

  Mr. Clappison
  Local authorities which budget within the Government's guideline rent increases will be unaffected by the new arrangements to limit rent rebate subsidy.

  Rent Capping
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what consultation was held with local authorities with respect to the new rent capping proposals. [10502]

  Mr. Clappison
  Our proposals for the limitation of subsidy on rent rebate costs in 1996–97 were circulated for consultation to the relevant local authority associations and to all local authorities on 21 November 1995. We asked for comments by 15 December.

  Housing Benefit (Council Tenants)
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many council tenants in the United Kingdom currently claim housing benefit. [10504]

  Mr. Clappison
  When claiming housing revenue account subsidy, local authorities in England supply my Department with information about the number of council tenants in receipt of rent rebate. Based on these returns, there are an estimated 2,394,000 council tenants in England in receipt of housing benefit in 1995–96. My Department does not receive any information about the number of claimants in the other parts of the United Kingdom.

  Rent Increases
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the 1996–97 guideline rent increases expressed in(a) real terms and (b) as a percentage increase on the 1995–96 amount. [10505]
  204
  Mr. Clappison
  There is no real terms increase in the 1996–97 average guideline rent per dwelling compared with 1995–96. In cash terms, the increase is 2.75 per cent.

  Air Quality Assessments
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) what consultation he has had with local authority associations as to the capacity of their members to carry out the necessary assessments of air quality to comply with part IV of the Environment Act 1995; [10772]

  (2) by what date he expects local authorities to complete assessments of air quality in their areas to comply with the air quality provisions in part IV of the Environment Act 1995. [10773]

  Mr. Clappison
  My Department, together with the Scottish Office and Welsh Office, established a working group last November, with representatives of the local authority associations, to advise on implementation and operation of the local air quality duties under the Environment Act 1995. The working group is considering the timing of reviews and assessments and developing the necessary guidance for local authorities, before the commencement of the relevant sections of the Act.

  Asylum Seekers (Benefits)
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will list the dates and attendance of all meetings between his Department and local government associations concerning the costs of implementing the Social Security (Persons from Abroad) Regulations; and if he will make a statement; [11000]

  (2) what is his estimate of the costs to local government of the implementation of the Social Security (Persons from Abroad) Miscellaneous Amendment Regulations; and if he will make a statement. [11001]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  This subject was discussed at a meeting on 6 December 1995 between my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government, Housing and Urban Regeneration and the Association of London Government, and with all the local authority associations at the Housing Consultative Council on 7 December. My officials will be having further discussions with the local authority associations in the near future, to help us to identify these costs and to decide what financial assistance to make available to local authorities.

  Mobile Phones
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many of the mobile phones which have been supplied to his Department in each of the last four years have been cloned; and on what dates. [11015]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  The information available to my Department suggests that 13 mobile phones have been cloned during the past four years. The precise dates when cloning took place are not available.

  Local Government Reorganisation
  Mr. Tipping
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what bids he has received from authorities that have been, or are to be, reorganised on 1 April 1995, 1996 or 1997 for reorganisation costs. [11068]

  Sir Paul Beresford
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 18 December 1995,Official Report, column 923.

  Drought Orders
  Mrs. Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of state for the Environment (1) how much notice water companies are required to give to the public of an application for a drought order; [10849]

  (2) what provisions govern the publicity given to an application for a drought order. [10850]

  Mr. Clappison
  Applicants for drought orders are required under schedule 8 to the Water Resources Act 1991 to serve notices on a range of specified persons and cause notice of the application to be published in one or more local newspapers and in the London Gazette.

  Mrs. Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, pursuant to his answer of 4 December,Official Report, columns 10–11, what is the latest position in respect of drought orders (a) applied for, (b) under consideration, (c) refused, (d) agreed and (e) withdrawn, by region. [10851]

  Mr. Clappison
  The figures since August 1995 by National Rivers Authority regions are as follows:

  (a)

  (b)

  (c)

  (d)

  (e)

  Northumbria and Yorkshire

  30

  2

  0

  24

  4

  North-west

  26

  2

  0

  24

  0

  South Western

  15

  5

  0

  7

  3

  Southern

  4

  0

  0

  4

  0

  Severn Trent

  3

  0

  0

  3

  0

  Thames

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Anglian

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Mrs. Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what consultation with other statutory or voluntary agencies is required before a water company makes applications for a drought order. [10852]

  Mr. Clappison
  The proceedings on applications for drought orders, as set out in schedule 8 to the Water Resources Act 1991, require the applicant to cause notice to be served on the National Rivers Authority and every local authority, other than county councils, and water undertaker whose area would be affected by the order. It is the Department's practice to consult both the NRA and English Nature on each application.

  Leaseholders (Estate Action)
  Mr. Carrington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he intends to take to help leaseholders of local authorities facing bills for estate action repairs and improvements where these costs are also met by Government-funded schemes. [11822]

  Mr. Clappison
  We have today invited comments on proposals to remove this anomaly. We propose to require local authorities, and other social landlords, to reduce charges for works to the extent that these are funded by central Government—for example, under the single regeneration budget challenge fund. For schemes already in process or completed—for example, under estate action—when the measure comes into effect, we propose to permit landlords to reduce charges. I have placed in the Library a copy of our consultation paper "Leaseholders of local authorities, housing action trusts, urban development corporations, registered housing associations and other registered social landlords: proposals to reduce charges for estate repairs and improvements funded by central government." We have invited comments by the end of February, as we wish to introduce our proposals at the earliest suitable legislative opportunity. The Welsh Office will be consulting similarly in Wales.

  Hydrofluorocarbons
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress has been made in the negotiation of voluntary agreements with industry on the use of hydrofluorocarbons. [11823]

  Mr. Gummer
  The Government have today concluded separate voluntary agreements with the four principal users of hydrofluorocarbons—the aerosols, air conditioning and refrigeration, fire and foams industries. These are the first agreements of their kind in Europe, and reflect the Government's desire to achieve environmental objectives through voluntary action by industry, rather than regulation, wherever possible.

  The agreements recognise that in certain applications, HFCs are important alternatives to chlorofluorocarbons and hydrochlorofluorocarbons which are ozone-depleting substances. HFCs are, however, greenhouse gases with a high global warming potential. The agreements with the industries concerned therefore ensure that, where HFCs are used, emissions to the atmosphere are minimised; and that they are not used where emissions are unavoidable, if safe, practical and more environmentally acceptable alternatives are available.

  Under the UN framework convention on climate change, the United Kingdom is committed to returning its emissions of greenhouse gases to 1990 levels by the year 2000. Although currently emitted in smaller quantities than some other greenhouse gases, HFCs are significant due both to their high global warming potentials and to the potential increase in their use as replacements for ozone-depleting substances. These agreements will lead to a reduction in HFC emissions and so contribute to the UK climate change programme.

  NRA (Prosecutions)
  Mr. Dobson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list each prosecution by the National Rivers Authority against the privatised coal companies since coal privatisation, indicating(a) the date of infringement, (b) the date of prosecution, (c) a summary of the nature of the offence and (d) any resultant conviction. [9509]

  Mr. Gummer
  [holding answer 15 January 1996]: No prosecutions have been brought by the National Rivers Authority against the privatised coal companies.

WALES

  Disabled Pupils
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what measures are in place to ensure that the inaccessibility of school transport is not a restricting factor in integrating disabled children into mainstream schools; and if he will make a statement. [9248]

  Mr. Richards
  Local education authorities have responsibility for identifying and assessing children with special educational needs. They have a qualified duty to ensure that children with special educational needs are educated in mainstream schools. They also have to comply with parental preference for a maintained school, subject to it being appropriate for the child and compatible with the efficient use of resources. If LEAs identify a particular need appropriate to a child's education, which may include school transport outside the authority's normal arrangements, they have to ensure that suitable provision is made.

  Disability Discrimination Act 1995
  Mr. McMaster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) what guidance he intends to issue to health authorities and trusts about the implementation of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995; and if he will make a statement; [9242]

  (2) what guidance he intends to issue to local authorities about the implementation of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995; and if he will make a statement; [9246]

  (3) what guidance he intends to issue to (a) Departments, (b) executive agencies, (c) non-departmental public bodies and (d) outside bodies and arm's-length organisations which he has responsibility for, or an interest in, regarding the implementation of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995; and if he will make a statement. [9231]

  Mr. Hague
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People on 15 January 1996,Official Report, column 417. I will ensure that my Department and any bodies for which it is responsible are made aware of their responsibilities under the Act.

  Community Health Councils
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proposals he has to enable members of town and community councils to be represented on community health councils as of right. [9546]

  Mr. Richards
  Current legislation does not provide for town and community councils to be represented on community health councils as of right.

  Primary legislation allows for at least one half of a community health council's membership to be made up of local authority nominees: these nominees can be drawn from any organisation, including town and community councils.

  Mr. Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many community and town councillors sit on community health councils in Wales. [9547]

  Mr. Richards
  This information is not held currently.

  Mr. Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the community health councils in Wales. [9548]

  Mr. Richards
  This information can be found in the 1995 health services year book prepared by the Institute of Health Services Management. A copy is in the Library.

  Mr. Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his policy in respect of consultation on community health council matters where town and community councils are concerned. [9549]

  Mr. Richards
  There is no central policy for consulting on community health council matters directly with town and community councils. It is for the representative local authority to consult locally with its constituent councils on CHC matters.

  Mr. Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the prospects for community health councils with respect to the impending changes in health authority organisation. [9550]

  Mr. Richards
  An important function of the new health authorities will be to act as the major local NHS presence, keeping in touch and working with local people and organisations to develop local services at a pace and in ways that local people will accept. As one of the most effective local representatives of the patient interest, CHCs fulfil the vital role of ensuring that the new commissioners are made fully aware of the need to make services more responsive to local needs and patient views.

  A copy of briefing paper No. 4, "A Fresh Start for Community Health Councils", drafted by an NHS Wales working group will be placed in the Library. This offers a more detailed assessment of how the role of CHCs may need to develop over the coming years.

  Teachers (Retirement and Redundancy)
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) how many teachers in each local education authority have taken early retirement(a) on grounds of ill health and (b) for other reasons in each of the last five years; and how many of those have subsequently returned to teaching; [9716]
  209
  (2) how many teachers in each local education authority have had their employment terminated by voluntary redundancy agreements in each of the last five years; and how many of these have subsequently returned to teaching. [9704]

  Mr. Hague
  I will write to the hon Member as soon as possible and place a copy of my reply in the Library of the House.

  Reasons for homelessness for those households accepted as homeless in Wales, in priority need by reason of age

  Number of cases

  1993

  1994

  1995

  Reason for homelessness

  January-March

  April-June

  July-September

  October-December

  January-March

  April-June

  July-September

  October-December

  January-March

  April-June

  Breakdown of relationship with parents

  2

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  1

  1

  1

  0

  Breakdown of relationship with relatives/friends

  14

  21

  19

  13

  17

  17

  23

  12

  12

  9

  Breakdown of relationship with spouse/cohabitee— violent

  1

  2

  6

  5

  8

  1

  2

  4

  3

  1

  Breakdown of relationship with spouse/cohabittee— non violent

  12

  7

  10

  4

  8

  6

  4

  3

  2

  5

  Action by mortgagee

  9

  11

  7

  10

  6

  10

  7

  15

  9

  6

  Sale of Owner occupied property

  5

  3

  3

  4

  6

  7

  6

  4

  6

  5

  Rent arrears,LA/HA/other Public Sector

  1

  2

  1

  3

  1

  3

  2

  2

  4

  3

  Rent arrears,private sector

  3

  0

  2

  1

  1

  1

  1

  0

  2

  2

  Other reason for loss of rented accommodation

  36

  18

  19

  22

  28

  26

  22

  22

  23

  25

  Fire, flood,storm etc.

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Other

  13

  16

  14

  15

  15

  20

  21

  15

  15

  26

  Total

  96

  80

  81

  78

  90

  91

  89

  78

  77

  82

  Source: Local authority returns.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Raynsford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what were the reasons for homelessness among those households accepted as homeless by local authorities in Wales who were in priority need by reason of old age, in each quarter in 1993 and 1994, and in the first two quarters of 1995. [10264]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The information requested is provided in the following table.

  Cardiff Bay Opera House
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what consultations, on how many occasions, and on which dates he has had with the members of the Millennium Commission on the proposed Cardiff Bay opera house. [11210]

  Mr. Hague
  I have had no such consultations. The chairman of the commission notified me, shortly before the public announcement, of the conclusions the commission had reached about the opera house application.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales on how many occasions consultants working for the Millennium Commission on the proposed Cardiff Bay opera house have contacted his Department. [11209]

  Mr. Hague
  None.

  Cancer Registration
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, pursuant to his answer of Wednesday 17 January,Official Report, column 559, if he will ensure that the new management of the Cancer Registry provides up-to-date cancer registration statistics. [11214]

  Mr. Hague
  The invitation for proposals to manage the Cancer Registry issued to Velindre and the combined centres set out clear performance targets that the successful organisation will be expected to meet. These targets include a timetable by which the backlog of registrations should be cleared and a future maximum operational delay of one year for registration data.

  Red Squirrels
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on his assessment of the red squirrel population over the last decade and the measures he proposes to promote re-population of red squirrels; and if he will make a statement. [8918]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The red squirrel has continued to decline throughout Wales, as it has throughout southern Britain, over the past 10 years. Remnant populations are now confined to a few large conifer forests on the mainland and on Anglesey. This decline is at least partly attributed to the continued spread of the non-native grey squirrel. The Countryside Council for Wales, in partnership with the Forestry Commission research division, Forest Enterprise and Forestry Authority are continuing to research the habitat requirements of both red and grey squirrels in Clocaenog forest, Clwyd to identify ways in which conifer plantations can be managed to promote red and minimise grey squirrel populations. The same organisations are also considering a method of enhancing red squirrel populations on Anglesey, which involves reducing grey squirrel populations.

  Wild Birds
  Mr. Dafis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what estimate he has made of the latest populations of 212
  wild bird species; what were the equivalent figures for 1985 and 1990; if he will indicate the estimated total and percentage change in each case; and if he will make a statement. [9023]

  Mr. Gwilym Jones
  The most recent estimates of the populations of wild birds are presented in "The New Atlas of Breeding Birds in Britain and Ireland: 1988–91", Gibbons, Reid and Chapman, 1993. Earlier estimates were published in "The Atlas of Breeding Birds in Britain and Ireland", Sharrock 1976. Trends in populations of wild birds are addressed in "Population trends in British Breeding Birds", Marchant et al, 1990.

  Information on how the size of wild bird populations changes over time is collected and reported annually through specially designed monitoring schemes, including the breeding birds survey, the wetland bird survey and the common birds census.

  Mobile Phones
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many of the mobile telephones which have been supplied to his Department in each of the last five years have been cloned; and on what dates. [11013]

  Mr. Hague
  One, on a number of occasions during August and September 1995.

  Nurses (Training)
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is the average amount of time nurses undergoing project 2000 training are available for national health service hospital duty as a percentage of the figure for whole-time trainee nurses in employment; and if he will make a statement. [11206]

  Mr. Hague
  Forty per cent.

  Hospitals (Emergency Admissions)
  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales on how many days each acute hospital in Wales was closed to emergency medical admissions in(a) 1993, (b) 1994 and (c) 1995. [11207]

  Mr. Hague
  This information is not held centrally.

  Mr. Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what guidelines he has issued to the health authorities and national health service acute hospital trusts on assessing the need for emergency medical admissions beds; what representations he has received in relation to the joint meeting of these trusts with their commissioning authorities on 17 January; and if he will make a statement. [11208]

  Mr. Hague
  Recognising the likely pressure on Welsh hospitals from emergency medical admissions over the Christmas and early new year period, my Department asked senior NHS managers and health care professionals to develop an action plan aimed at minimising the risk of disruption to patient services.

  An outline plan was developed before Christmas and senior managers met on 17 January to review its implementation. My officials are in regular contact with

  213
  those co-ordinating action in the NHS and are monitoring the position closely.

  I have not received any representation on this issue following the meeting on 17 January 1996.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Child Rearing Costs
  Mr. Chisholm
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment he has made of the relative costs of bringing up children by lone-parents and by couples. [8801]

  Mr. Burt
  There is no consistent evidence that the financial requirements of a lone-parent household in bringing up a child are different from those of a two-parent household, with the exception of a potentially greater need to pay for child care when the lone parent is in employment.

  Seasonal Workers (Benefits)
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what steps he is taking to make the eligibility rules for income support and family credit for seasonal workers fully compatible.[8803]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The eligibility rules for seasonal workers in income support and family credit are compatible with the aims of the respective benefits. Where possible, the eligibility rules for these benefits are aligned.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many representations he has received on the subject of the recent changes to the system of payment of housing benefit; and if he will make a statement. [8804]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  We have received a number of representations regarding the changes which came into effect on 2 January. They were the subject of consultation with local authority associations and the Social Security Advisory Committee last year. The outcome of the SSAC consultations was published in Cm 2902 in July 1995.

  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has had following the announcement of the change to housing benefit rules. [8812]

  Mr. Evans
  There have been a number of representations to the Secretary of State on these changes. However, the proposals are still subject to consultation with local authority associations and the Social Security Advisory Committee. The committee's report will be published in March and my response to it will be published in a Command Paper later this year.

  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment he has made of the estimated cost of young people leaving local authority care who will require shared accommodation as a result of changes in housing benefit for the under 25-year-olds; and if he will make a statement. [8816]

  Mr. Evans
  No separate estimate has been made.214
  Under the proposed changes, young people who have been in the care of local authorities are to be treated no differently from other young people living independently.

  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the total cost of housing benefit paid to homeless families living in bed-and-breakfast accommodation in the last year for which figures are available. [9260]

  Mr. Evans
  The information is not available in the format requested. It is estimated that the cost of housing benefit paid to homeless families housed by local authorities as boarders, in 1994–95, was approximately £9 million.
  Notes:

  1. Homeless is defined as those families accepted as homeless by the local authority and placed in accommodation by the local authority and paying rent to the local authority.

  2. Families are defined as single people or couples with children.

  3. Bed-and-breakfast accommodation is not directly identified by departmental statistics; the estimate relates to those counted as boarders—i.e. rent includes an amount for meals.

  Source:The annual 1 per cent. sample of housing benefit cases.
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish in respect of each of the constituent nations of the United Kingdom and for the United Kingdom as a whole his estimate of the total cost to local authorities of administering the new rules on housing benefit introduced in January 1995; and if he will make a statement. [8782]

  Mr. Evans
  The information is set out in the table and relates to Great Britain only. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is responsible for the administration of housing benefit in Northern Ireland.

  Estimate of local authorities' administration costs for 1995–96 arising from housing benefit changes introduced January 1996

  £ million

  England

  6.00

  Wales

  0.25

  Scotland

  0.75

  Total GB

  7.01

  1. Totals include first year set up costs.

  2. Individual figures do not sum because of rounding.

  Benefit Payment Card
  Mr. Mans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to introduce a benefit payment card. [8805]

  Mr. Heald
  We intend to start phasing in the replacement of order books and girocheques with benefit payment cards in the autumn.

  Benefit System Reform
  Mr. Simon Coombs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has received from political parties over the past three months concerning reforms of the benefit system. [8806]
  215
  Mr. Lilley
  Opposition parties have criticised all the reforms of the social security system which I have announced over the last three months, as they have opposed all my previous reforms, which will save more than £5 billion by the end of the century and more than £15 billion in the longer term.

  Mr. Harry Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what effect he estimates his social security reforms will have had on public spending by the year 2050 in 1994–95 prices. [9472]

  Mr. Burt
  The major reforms announced in the last three years are expected to reduce public spending by about £15 billion per year in the longer term. It is estimated that this long-run figure will be reached by around 2030.

  Fraud
  Dr. Goodson-Wickes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what measures he is assessing to combat fraud; and if he will make a statement. [8807]

  Mr. Heald
  I refer the hon. Member to the oral answer that I gave earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland).

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many cases are being dealt with by the CSA. [8808]

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  The Child Support Agency is currently working on 833,000 cases.

  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proposals he has to review the current operation of the Child Support Agency; and if he will make a statement. [8811]

  Mr. Mitchell
  The performance of the Child Support Agency is continually reviewed against agreed targets.

  Mr. O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the co-operation of the Child Support Agency with the parliamentary commissioner in his investigation into the working of the agency. [9541]

  Mr. Mitchell
  The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the chief executive, Miss Ann Chant. She will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Ann Chant to Mr. William O'Brien, dated 22 January 1996:
  I am replying to your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about Child Support Agency co-operation with the Parliamentary Commissioner.
  All Agencies of the Department of Social Security (DSS) liaise with the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration (PCA) through the Department's DSS PCA Focal Point. The Child Support Agency has a dedicated PCA Unit which deals with all complaints and correspondence with the PCA. This PCA Unit works closely with colleagues at the DSS PCA Focal Point.
  In addition to the PCA Select Committee's strict and short deadlines for Departments to respond to new complaints referred by the PCA, the DSS is the only Department to have additional agreed
  216
  deadlines with the PCA for the other stages of his investigation process. Since its inception the Child Support Agency has met all the deadlines on all the cases referred to it.
  The Agency (and the Department) has a very clear policy in its dealings with the PCA: if mistakes have been made, this is explained clearly and objectively to the PCA and appropriate apologies given.
  The PCA has previously commented to the PCA Select Committee that he has very good liaison with the DSS and singled out the work of the Department, through the offices of the Focal Point, for their excellent work.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Ms Lynne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 11 January,Official Report, column 324, on computer services, on what basis the Child Support Agency's operational accounting system records the amount of down time; what factors led him to give information for only 17 weeks; what has been the amount of down time up to the present for each week since 7 June 1994; and what procedures were in place to carry out the tasks carried out by the operational accounting system before 7 June 1994. [10357]

  Mr. Mitchell
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave on 11 January 1995,Official Report, column 324.

  Service availability of the Child Support Agency's operational accounting system is recorded and reported on a weekly basis.

  Information was given for the whole of the period since the system went live. The answer states that there has been 100 per cent. availability except for the 17 weeks tabulated. The table shows the availability in those 17 weeks.

  Before 7 June 1994, the CSA obtained management information either clerically, or by special scans of the child support computer system database.

  Funded Pension Schemes
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the aggregate level of funded pension schemes in the United Kingdom; and what is the level in other EU countries. [8809]

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

  Income Support
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the current cost of income support. [8813]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The estimated cost of income support is £16 billion for the current year.

  State Pension
  Mr. Roy Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what consideration he has given to relating the state pension to the inflation rate and average earnings. [8814]

  Mr. Heald
  I have no plans to change the current legislation, which provides for the annual uprating of the state pension in line with the rise in prices.

  Pensions (Rebate Contributions)
  Mr. McAllion
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his latest estimate of the percentage of people who bought appropriate pensions in 1987–88 who have made full rebate contributions in each subsequent year. [8817]

  Mr. Heald
  Nearly half the people who started an appropriate personal pension with effect from 1987–88 have received a rebate of contributions in each year up to 1992–93, the latest year for which figures are available. Approximately 80 per cent. of those people who took out an appropriate personal pension with effect from 1987–88 and who still held it in 1992–93 received rebates for at least four of the six years involved.

  Benefit Costs
  Sir Sydney Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the cost of all social security benefits paid out in 1978–79; what is the estimated outturn this financial year; and what is the relationship between these figures after allowing for inflation. [8818]

  Mr. Lilley
  Spending this year is estimated to be £87.1 billion compared to £49.2 billion in 1978–79, in today's prices. This represents average real growth of 3 per cent. a year over the period.

  Cold Weather Payments
  Mr. Wicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list, for each week since 1 December 1995, for each Benefits Agency area,(a) the average minimum daily temperature, (b) if cold weather payments were triggered and (c) how many people received payments. [9623]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The administration of the social fund is a matter for Peter Mathison, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member and a copy will be placed in the Library.

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Malcolm Wicks, dated 18 January 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking if he will list, for each week since 1st December 1995, for each Benefit Agency (BA) area, (a) the average minimum daily temperature, (b) if Cold Weather Payments (CWPs) were triggered and (c) how many people received payments.
  Data relating to average minimum daily temperature is collected by weather stations. A weather station covers a geographical area within which there can be several BA Districts. Information on temperatures for each BA area is not available.
  Statistics on the number of CWPs made for each month is placed in the House of Commons Library. The data for December 1995 will be available by 26 January 1996.
  Information on the areas triggered is provided at Annex A and copies will be placed in the Library.
  I hope you find this reply helpful

  Claimants (Peterlee and Seaham)
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many single parents are currently claiming benefits in the areas covered by the Peterlee and Seaham benefit offices; [9502]
  218
  (2) how many people in the areas covered by the Seaham and Peterlee offices are in receipt of (a) state retirement pension, (b) incapacity benefit (c) income support, (d) family credit and (e) disability living allowance, broken down into its various components. [9500]

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

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. John Cummings, dated 22 January 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Questions asking how many single parents are currently claiming benefits and how many people are in receipt of (a) State Retirement Pension (RP), (b) Incapacity Benefit (IB), (c) Income Support (IS), (d) Family Credit (FC) and (e) Disability Living Allowance (DLA), broken down into its various components, in the areas covered by the Peterlee and Seaham benefit offices.
  The information requested is not available in the form requested. Such information as is available is shown at Annexe A. The number of people claiming IS and DLA for Peterlee and Seaham could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.
  The North Durham District includes the areas of Durham, Chester-le-street, Peterlee, Seaham and Stanley. The number of single parents currently in receipt of IS in the North Durham District is 6,258. Details of claims from single parents to other benefits is not available. The total number of people receiving IS in the District is 39,116, at November 1995.
  I hope you find this reply helpful

  Reduced Earnings Allowance
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when the Benefits Agency will begin its exercise to identify and review cases where retirement allowance is mistakenly being paid in place of reduced earnings allowance; how long he expects this review to last; how many cases, approximately, he expects to be involved; and how quickly any arrears will be paid to claimants. [8952]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The administration of retirement allowance, payable under the industrial injuries scheme, is a matter for Peter Mathison, the chief executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Chris Smith, dated 22 January 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking when the Benefits Agency will begin its exercise to identify and review cases where Retirement Allowance (RA) is mistakenly being paid in place of Reduced Earnings Allowance (REA); how long he expects this review to last; how many cases, approximately, he expects to he involved; and how quickly any arrears will be paid to claimants.
  The Benefits Agency is currently trawling all their Industrial Injuries Benefit cases, approximately 4 million, to identify all RA and REA customers who have attained pension age since April 1989 when RA was introduced. The trawl which started in December 1995 is due to be finished by the end of February 1996. Once amending legislation is in place all identified cases will then be examined and where necessary referred to independent Adjudication Officers who will review the benefit entitlement.
  The review exercise will be undertaken as soon as possible. Approximately 8,500 RA and 19,000 REA cases will need to he re-examined. It is not possible to say, at this stage, when this exercise will be completed but the situation will be closely monitored.

  219
  Arrears of benefit will be paid to each customer whose case is favourably reviewed as soon as the mandatory overlapping benefit enquiries have been undertaken.
  I hope this reply is helpful.

  Incapacity Benefit
  Mr. William O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the progress of the updating of the "Incapacity Benefit: Medical Advisers Guide" to incapacity benefit. [9540]

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

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. William O'Brien, dated 22 January 1996:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking if he will make a statement on the progress of the updating of the Incapacity Benefit: Medical Advisors Guide to Incapacity Benefit.
  The Medical Advisers' Guide to Incapacity Benefit is currently being brought up to date. A revised version will be available from April 1996.
  I hope this reply is helpful.

  Pension Contributions
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list(a) the total number of the work force who are currently members of (i) State earnings-related pension scheme, (ii) company pension schemes and (iii) personal pension schemes, (b) the average percentage of the wage or salary being paid into each scheme and (c) the average length of time in years for which these contributions have been made. [7591]

  Mr. Heald
  The following are the latest figures available for the numbers of individuals falling into each category at some time during the year in question, with one exception—see footnote 2. In certain cases some people may. in the course of a year, be in more than one type of scheme and so the numbers in separate schemes cannot be sensibly totalled. Nor can they be compared to numbers in employment or the work force, measured at a single point in time. This is because more people will work at some time during the year than will be working at any single point in time.

  The cumulative number of people who paid some class 1 national insurance contributions at the not-contracted-out rate over the year 1992–93 was 9.1 million. Of those, the number whose earnings factor was equal to or above the annual lower earnings limit is 6.5 million1; these will accrue entitlement to additional pension as will a number of people whose earnings factor was just below the LEL, provided they reach state pension age before April 2000.

  Individuals reaching state pension age from April 1999 onwards may also receive an enhancement to their entitlement to additional pension in respect of periods of caring responsibilities and incapacity since 1978.

  In 1991, 10.7 million people were members of occupational pension schemes2. This figure includes members of both contracted-in and contracted-out schemes.
  220
  In 1992–93, the latest year for which all the relevant data is available, 5.7 million employees were members of appropriate personal pension schemes3 and 600,000 self-employed people held non-appropriate personal pensions4. There were also 1.1 million self-employed holders of retirement annuity contracts4. In addition, 2.5 million non-appropriate personal pension arrangements5 were held by employees, some of whom may also have held an appropriate personal pension or a number of non-appropriate arrangements.

  Information relating to the average percentage of the wage or salary paid into each type of scheme and the length of time for which contributions have been made is not available.

  1. Source 1 per cent. sample from the National Insurance Recording System.

  2. Source: GAD 1991 survey of occupational pension schemes which records membership at points in time rather than cumulatively over a year.

  3. Source: 1 per cent. sample from the national insurance recording system.

  4. Source: Inland Revenue survey of personal incomes.

  5. Source: Inland Revenue tax returns from all providers.

  In certain cases some people may, in the course of a year, be in one or more types of schemes and so the numbers in separate schemes cannot be sensibly totalled.

  Mental Illness
  Mr. Milburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 14 December,Official Report, column 795, on sick days related to mental illness, if he will estimate the value of benefits in each year since 1979. [7789]

  Mr. Burt
  The information requested is not available.

  Voluntary and Charitable Payments
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his estimate of the effect on revenues in(a) 1996–97 and (b) 1997–98 of the increase from £10 to £20 in the disregard for voluntary and charitable payments. [8503]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  The increase in the disregard on charitable and voluntary payments is likely to be achieved at negligible cost.

  Child Support Appeal Tribunals
  Mr. Spellar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what action his Department is taking to improve the average clearance time at child support appeal tribunals. [9103]

  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  In conjunction with the independent tribunal service, we are continually looking for ways to improve the clearance time on appeals. For example, the Child Support Agency has set up a central unit to deal with appeals which in the second half of 1995 processed twice as many appeals as in the first half.

  Pensioners (Consumer Durables)
  Sir Andrew Bowden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what percentage of the lowest income quintile of pensioner households had access to a(a) fridge or fridge/freezer, (b) car or van, (c) freezer or

  221
  fridge/freezer, (d) telephone and (e) television in (i) 1975 and (ii) 1995. [10206]

  Mr. Heald
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is in the table.

  Estimated percentages of pensioner benefit units in the bottom quintile of the income distribution possessing various durable goods

  Percentage

  Durable goods

  1979

  1993

  (a) Fridge or fridge/freezer

  81

  97

  (b) Car or van

  26

  34

  (c) Freezer or fridge/freezer

  23

  70

  (d) Telephone

  45

  88

  (e) Television

  91

  198

  Notes:

  1This figure is for 1992 as the data is not available from the Pensioners' Incomes Series 1993.

  1. A pensioner benefit unit is defined as a single person over state pension age or a couple where the husband, or head, is over state pension age.

  2. The earliest date for which information is available is 1979.

  3. The latest date for which information is available is 1993.

  4. The information is based on pensioner benefit units rather than pensioner households.

  Source:

  Analysis of the 1979, 1992 and 1993 Family Expenditure Surveys and Pensioners' Incomes Series.

  War Pensions
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the representations his Department received during 1995 from individual war pensioners, their associations, charities, local authorities and other politicians on the issue of disregard of war pensions by local authorities. [9973]

  Mr. Heald
  The information is not available in the format requested. In 1995, this Department received a number of such representations. From the information that is available, this included some 60 letters from hon. Members and some 144 letters from members of the public, local authorities and other interested parties.

  Pensioners (Income Support)
  Mr. Denham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what estimate he has made of the number of pensioners claiming income support in 2025 and 2035, assuming that the income support level remains at its current proportion of average earnings; [10511]

  (2) what estimate he has made of the number of pensioners in 2025 and 2035 who will have a state earnings-related pension scheme entitlement or other second-tier pension entitlement which, in combination with their basic pension entitlement, will leave them with an income below current income support levels, assuming that the basic state pension and the level of income support remain constant in real terms; [10513]

  (3) what estimate he has made of the number of pensioners claiming income support in 2025 and 2035,
  222
  assuming that income support levels remain constant in real terms; [10510]

  (4) what estimate he has made of the number of pensioners in 2025 and 2035 who will have a state earnings-related pension scheme entitlement or other second-tier pension entitlement of under £20 in 1996 prices; [10512]

  (5) what estimate he has made of the number of pensioners claiming income support over the period of the Government Actuary's quinquennial review of the national insurance fund; and what assumptions he has used to make this estimate. [10514]

  Mr. Heald
  The information is not available in the format requested. However, some information is now available from the departmental pensioner incomes simulation model, which projects changes in pensioner incomes to the year 2025. The results from the model are heavily dependent on the economic and behavioural assumptions used, and should be treated as a broad indication of the likely order of magnitude of any figures given, and should in addition be rounded heavily1. Details of the methodology and assumptions used in the model, and a brief overview of basic results, will appear in a technical paper released in the coming months.

  In 2025, assuming that basic state pension and the level of income support remain constant in real terms at 1994 prices, PENSIM projects that approximately 1.5 million pensioner benefit units2 will have a SERPS pension entitlement or other second-tier pension entitlement which, in combination with their basic pension entitlement, will leave them with a pension income below income support levels.

  However, due to income from other source, such as earnings and investment income, and other income support rules, such as capital limits, PENSIM estimates that in 2025 there will be approximately 0.5 million pensioner benefit units in receipt of income support. In 2010 PENSIM estimates there will be approximately 1 million pensioner benefit units in receipt of income support, assuming that income support levels remain constant in real terms.

  If income support levels had been uprated to remain at the same proportion of average earnings as in 1994, PENSIM projects that in 2025 there would he approximately 1.5 million pensioner benefit units in receipt of income support.

  PENSIM can be used to estimate relative changes over time but cannot produce robust estimates of absolute values. It cannot therefore be used to estimate the number of pensioners in 2025 who will have a SERPS pension entitlement or other second-tier pension entitlement of under £20 in 1996 prices.
  Notes1All figures rounded to the nearest 500,000.2Pensioner benefit unit is defined as a single pensioner over state pension age in 2025, or a couple with at least one partner over state pension age.

  National Insurance Fund Subsidy
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what has been the level of annual subsidy to the national insurance fund in each year since 1985 to(a) meet spending commitments and (b) compensate for those who have taken out private pension insurance. [10845]

  Mr. Heald
  The amounts paid to the national insurance fund for each year in the period from 1985–86 to 1994–95 are shown in the table. These payments are a general contribution to the fund and are not attributed to any particular aspect of its expenditure.

  Payments into the national insurance fund11985–86 to 1994–95

  Year

  Amount £ million

  1985–86

  2,163

  1986–87

  2,412

  1987–88

  2,135

  1988–89

  1,653

  1989–90

  nil

  1990–91

  nil

  1991–92

  nil

  1992–93

  nil

  1993–94

  7,589

  1994–95

  6,280

  1Treasury supplement until 1988–89; Treasury grant from 1993–94.

  State Earnings-related Pension Scheme
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his estimate of the total number of people in SERPS for each year since 1985 and for each year the number(a) entering, (b) leaving and (c) re-entering the scheme. [10846]

  Mr. Heald
  Information relating to the number of people in the state earnings-related pension scheme for each year since 1985–86 to 1992–93 is given in the table. Information relating to the number of people who entered, left, and re-entered SERPS is not currently available and I will write to the hon. Member with these details shortly.

  Year

  Number of people (millions)

  1985–86

  10.2

  1986–87

  10.4

  1987–88

  7.2

  1988–89

  7.6

  1989–90

  7.5

  224

  Year

  Number of people (millions)

  1990–91

  7.5

  1991–92

  6.7

  1992–93

  6.5

  1. Figures are for UK and rounded to nearest.1 million.

  2. Figures for 1987–88 are provisional.

  3. Figures for 1992–93 are not complete as some employers' tax returns may not yet have been input to the national insurance recording system.

  Source: 1 per cent. trawl of NIRS.

  5. Excludes appropriate personal pension holders.

  The table gives the numbers of people who have a qualifying year for additional pension purposes by virtue of having paid some class 1 national insurance contributions at the not contracted-out rate during the year with relevant earnings greater than or equal to the lower earnings limit applicable to that year.

  State Pension (Earnings Link)
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of the cost of restoration of the link with earnings of the state pension from April 1996: and if he will make a statement. [10848]

  Mr. Heald
  It is estimated that restoring the link with earnings in uprating retirement pension in 1996–97 would increase pension expenditure by £10.1 billion.

  Habitual Residence Rule
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people have been denied benefits under the habitual residence rule; and what number were(a) British citizens and (b) foreign nationals. [9348]

  Mr. Roger Evans
  [holding answer 16 January. 1996]: The information requested is set out in the table and covers the period August 1994 to November 1995. It relates only to income support; housing benefit figures will not be available until December 1996 at the earliest.

  Fail

  EEA nationals

  11,946

  British citizens

  7,489

  Others

  13,835

  Total

  33,270

  The Benefits Agency has placed figures relating to the habitual residence test in the Library since April 1995.

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

Drivers' Eyesight Tests
Lord Strathcarron Lord Strathcarron asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, in the interests of road safety, they have plans to introduce eyesight tests for drivers.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Viscount Goschen): My Lords, all new drivers already have to take an eyesight test. Car drivers must take the number plate test as part of the driving test; lorry and bus drivers must, in addition, pass an eye test before obtaining or renewing their licence. We have no plans to introduce additional mandatory tests.
Lord Strathcarron: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for his reply. It was not unexpected. Is he aware that a recent survey showed that 3½ million drivers would fail the legal eyesight test and others have blinkered vision and cannot see at night? Does he agree that perhaps more people may be killed or injured on the roads by people who cannot see than by people who are over the limit? Because bad eyesight is respectable and being over the limit is not, the Government do not appear to wish to do anything about it. It is totally irrelevant so far as I am concerned whether I am run over by someone who cannot see or by someone who is over the limit.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, of course, it would be entirely relevant to the House if my noble friend were run over, particularly on the occasion of his birthday. We are aware of the recent survey. We have asked for further information so that we can conduct our own assessment of it. It goes against the results that we had from earlier research by the Transport Research Laboratory, which suggested that the problem was not so widespread as the survey suggests. It is extremely difficult to make comparisons between drink driving and possible eye disorders. Drink driving is a very serious situation indeed and we have taken many strict measures to address that problem. We simply do not have the information that my noble friend would like on the degree to which eye conditions affect accidents.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, can the Minister say whether the survey to which he referred will give us any additional useful information in that direction? What is the timescale for the survey? When does the Minister expect to receive its results? Perhaps we on this side of the House may join in the felicitous birthday greetings that the Minister offered.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the survey has already been carried out. The results have already been made
900
public, but we are awaiting the detailed bulk of the research so that we can make our own independent assessment of that. If that leads us to any new conclusions, we shall make them public.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords, is my noble friend the Minister aware that the older one gets, the more one's eyesight is likely to fail and that those knowledgeable about eyesight say that over the age of 30 people's eyesight gets measurably worse every five years?
Viscount Goschen: Yes, my Lords, I understand that the experts say that there is a strong correlation between age and eyesight problems. That is 'why it is very important for all drivers who feel that they might have a problem to have their eyes tested on a regular basis and to take the appropriate action.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that some 10 years ago I had a Bill before Parliament which invited the Government and the House to agree that there should be tests every five years from the age of about 50 onwards? Is he further aware that the Transport Research Laboratory has continually resisted having a more up-to-date form of test than the 30-yard test because it says that nobody can prove that it is not good enough? Does he agree that there is a lot of evidence that we have not collected? Will my noble friend take this point very seriously and not be put off by scientists who do not have enough time to do the other things that they want to do?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, we take this issue extremely seriously indeed. With some 30 million drivers, the burdens of setting and continuing regular mandatory tests and of enforcement would be very substantial indeed in the absence of firm evidence that there would be a corresponding increase in road safety. As for the test that is given to car drivers, the Royal College of Ophthalmologists considers that the test, which requires the ability to read a number plate in good daylight from 67 feet, with glasses if worn, is an appropriate measure of eyesight and gives a good indication of whether one's eyesight is sufficient for driving purposes.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, as one who is quite capable, even in advanced years., of passing the existing eyesight test, I ask the Minister whether he is aware that it would be of very great assistance to all drivers, including those who have perfect sight, if the police were to enforce the law in regard to carrying lights at night by cyclists? If they have no lights, they are very difficult to detect when one is driving, however good one's sight.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, making sure that bicycles are properly lit and that cyclists behave responsibly is an important issue. All road safety matters are taken seriously by the police. But the issue is slightly different from that of visual ability.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, did the Minister see the article by Christopher Booker one week

901
ago last Sunday in which he stated that the new eye test being proposed by a European directive will put many lorry drivers off the roads and thus affect their livelihoods? Can the Minister comment on that?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, it is true that, with the coming of a second EC driving directive, there will be changes. But the comment in the press—I am not necessarily referring to the specific article mentioned by the noble Lord—has been extraordinary and has over-egged the situation. The main difference from the present requirement is that those drivers will have to meet a minimum standard of vision equivalent to reading the top letter on an optician's chart from three metres away without their glasses, in both eyes rather than one. That would affect very few commercial drivers in percentage terms.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that in Spain, where my mother used to live, people over the age of 65 not only have to have their eyes tested but also have to simulate a driving test? Do we have any plans to go down that route?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, no, we do not. Over the age of 70 a declaration is required that one's faculties are in order and are suitable for driving. However, we do not have a specific test at that age.

Prayer Book: 450th Anniversary
2.45 p.m.
Lord Sudeley Lord Sudeley asked Her Majesty's Government:
What plans they have to commemorate the 450th anniversary of the first Prayer Book in 1549 and, in particular, whether they will encourage the Post Office to issue a commemorative stamp.
The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Fraser of Carmyllie): My Lords, I have passed on to the Post Office my noble friend's request for a commemorative stamp. The special stamp programme is an operational matter for the Post Office and it will make the final decision. The Government have no special plans to commemorate this anniversary.
Lord Sudeley: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. On the matter of the 450th anniversary of the first Prayer Book, will Her Majesty's Government encourage the naming of a railway locomotive after the Archbishop of Canterbury? What consultations will the Government initiate with the Museums & Galleries Commission? Mindful of the way in which, in times past, the Book of Common Prayer has been embraced by Anglican Churches worldwide, what are the plans of both the Department of National Heritage and the British Tourist Authority?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, in the same way as commemorative stamps are a matter for the Post Office, the naming of a locomotive is one for those engaged in the privatised railways rather than for
902
government. As I indicated, we have no special plans to celebrate the anniversary. However, my noble friend may recall that as far back as April 1981 my noble friend the Leader of the House was fervent in his protection of the Book of Common Prayer and my noble friend may wish to engage in conversation with him.
Lord Kirkford: My Lords, will the Minister make a further approach to the Post Office and ask that the commemorative stamp should contain a prayer that the Post Office should not be privatised?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, as one Presbyterian Scot to another, perhaps I can say that the noble Lord will be interested to know that, if there is to be a prayer for the Post Office, the Church of England is in the process of liturgical reform and the noble Lord may wish to address his observations in that direction.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: My Lords, is my noble and learned friend aware that this is the quincentenary year of the College of Thomas Cranmer, the principal author of the Prayer Book? Is he further aware that Her Majesty the Queen will be opening the quincentenary library of Jesus College Cambridge, of which I have the honour to be Master? If there is a possibility of a commemorative stamp in relation to the Prayer Book, will my noble and learned friend pass on to the Post Office the suggestion that an image of the Great Gate of Jesus College might be suitable decoration?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, my noble friend spelt out his case so eloquently that it is unnecessary for me to pass it on. I have no doubt that his comments will be noted. From time to time stamps commemorate religious themes and noble Lords may be interested to know that next year there are to be commemorative stamps for St. Augustine and St. Columba, but nothing to commemorate the Book of Common Prayer.
Lord Gainford: My Lords, as the Book of Common Prayer seems unfortunately to be eclipsed by "alternative" series, will the Minister note that 1999 is also the first year since 1927 when there will be a total eclipse of the sun visible in Great Britain?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, my noble friend clearly draws conclusions from the movements in the heavens, although I do not believe that necessarily all of us would reach the same conclusions, but it is certainly to be noted. As I said, my noble friend the Leader of the House may be able to offer some comfort given the protection that he would wish to afford to the Book of Common Prayer.
Lord Peston: My Lords, perhaps I may bring this matter down to earth. Of course the Minister is entirely, right in that this is an operational matter for the Post Office. However, can he tell your Lordships how the Post Office makes this kind of decision? Is the issue of commemorative stamps decided on a commercial basis—namely, what kind of stamp may appeal to collectors—or does the Post Office have a concern, and

903
indeed an obligation, to consider what are the important national events that might be commemorated, which relate, of course, to the locus of the Government?
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie: My Lords, yes indeed. Since 1969 the arrangement has been that the decision on the issue of a commemorative stamp is for the Post Office. Indeed, criteria have been established. They are to commemorate important anniversaries; to celebrate events of national and international importance; to reflect the British contribution to world affairs; to reflect the various aspects of Britain and the British way of life; to extend public patronage to the arts and also to fit in with the Royal Mail's commercial targets for philately. The Government are given an opportunity to comment on what is proposed and can certainly, as it were, veto an issue if the particular stamp proposed is considered unacceptable on political grounds.

Mileometers: Illegal Alteration
2.51 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
What progress is being made in reducing the illegal alteration of mileometers in motor vehicles, commonly known as "clocking".
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, in 1992 the Government introduced a voluntary mileage recording scheme, administered by the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency, to address the problem of vehicle "clocking". We are currently reviewing the possibilities for improving the procedures in the light of the responses to a recent consultation paper.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his reply. Did he notice the conviction in Scotland of a crook who admitted 47 offences, and was known to have committed many more, wiping altogether about 3 million miles off the "clocks"? Will the Government congratulate the trading standards departments concerned and the police on their painstaking work and success in detection and in obtaining a conviction in this particular case? Since these criminals are becoming even more cunning and devious, can the Government do any more to ensure that further efforts are made to stamp out the fraudulent deception of the public?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, this is a very serious issue. My noble friend is quite right to highlight the enforcement effort made by trading standards officers. I understand that in the case to which my noble friend referred, the individual in question was found to have "clocked" about 47 cars. I understand that the figure of 3 million miles is roughly correct. Enforcement must form a major part of the strategy to address this major issue of vehicle "clocking".
Lord Ezra: My Lords, about three years ago I introduced a Bill to strengthen the law in this respect but unfortunately it never reached the statute book.
904
Bearing in mind that at that time the Institute of Trading Standards Administration, of which I was president, estimated that the public, the purchaser of secondhand cars, had paid about £100 million more than they should have for vehicles that had been "clocked", can the noble Viscount indicate what the figure is now and whether, in the light of the developments to which the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, referred, the law might now be strengthened?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I do not believe that it is possible to put a precise figure to the question which the noble Lord has raised. The point is that it would be a guess at the very best of times. Suffice it to say that it is a very serious problem indeed and one on which we must make a three-stranded attack: first, to pursue our efforts to record more vehicle mileages at the time of sale; secondly, to make sure that the enforcement is up to scratch; and, thirdly, for manufacturers to continue their efforts to produce odometers which are more difficult to tamper with.
Lord Monson: My Lords, does the noble Viscount agree that one way to curb this crime is for guidelines to be set whereby a conviction would almost always result in a prison sentence, together with an order for substantial compensation to be paid to the victim?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, it is fair to say that sentencing is an extremely complicated issue. We must have the proper penalties. We must put proper effort into catching the criminals in the first place. I believe that is possibly where the difficulties lie.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, does the noble Viscount agree that this is serious fraud and against the consumers' charter? Does he further agree that it is important that the Government pay greater attention to this matter? It is 12 months since there was a report that this problem was being studied and that action would be taken, but nothing seems to progress. Does the Minister agree that it is important to recognise that trading standards departments have the task of taking people to court, but that the departments are limited by the amount of funds from government? When the noble Viscount says that the authorities are doing all they can, that is very little.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, that is not the case at all. We have introduced a new system which gathers information on a voluntary basis when vehicles change hands. That must be a major factor in addressing this situation. We must get correct information which can then be disseminated. That is a major plank in our attack on vehicle fraud. Not only is this matter a serious offence but it also contravenes the Trades Description Act. Where evidence is available, trading standards officers take action which results in convictions.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the potential purchaser can go a long way to protect himself against fraud by buying through a franchised dealer outlet and/or using the services of independent engineers and/or the motoring services to carry out an examination which would reveal such a fraud?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, that would be one way for a potential customer to gain greater security. However, with private purchasers that is not always possible. We have tried to make more information available. We have pursued our attempts to make more drivers fill in a form, including the mileage, when they sell the vehicle so that that information can then be disseminated and people will have a much more reliable idea of the actual mileage covered. It is an important road safety issue.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, are the Government aware that there is an annual record of the mileage of cars over three years of age taken at the time of the MoT test? What is the Government's estimate of the cost of recording those figures centrally—presumably at the DLVA—in such a way that that record can be interrogated by the prospective purchasers of vehicles?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, I welcome back the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, to the House after his enforced absence yesterday. He raises an important question about the MoT test. In the event that the test is computerised, that would provide a good avenue for the collection of this information. That might well be a useful tool at that stage.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, can the noble Viscount say what is the position of a motorist whose car mileometer breaks and who has to purchase a new one which begins at nought? What obligation is there for him to record the mileage on the old mileometer and then to start again with the new one?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the offence is selling a car and making false representation about the mileage. If the speedometer cable breaks and one replaces the speedometer with a new one, the appropriate action would be to declare the total mileage of the vehicle.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, does the Minister agree that this fraudulent activity has become something of a national epidemic? In those circumstances, why do not the Government translate their voluntary advice into a compulsory and mandatory requirement? Would not that materially assist? Can the Minister say why the DVLA does not take this issue as seriously as it does tax dodging? Is it because there is no revenue in it?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, the two matters are entirely different. As regards the noble Lord's first point about making the system mandatory, that would be one option, but it would not help in guaranteeing further the accuracy of the information and that is an important point. It would also put a very substantial regulatory burden on motorists. We shall pursue our voluntary approach and see whether in the course of time that produces the full results which we are looking for. The DVLA takes this issue seriously and that is why we have introduced a new scheme. The information is disseminated to companies, and the public will be able to inquire about vehicle histories.

Chechnya: Mediation Prospects
3 p.m.
Lord Hylton Lord Hylton asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their opinion of the best means of achieving a permanent ceasefire and peace settlement in Chechnya, in view of the loss of life, suffering and economic damage already caused.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Chalker of Wallasey): My Lords, a negotiated settlement is the only way to bring lasting peace to Chechnya. We call on the Russians and the Chechens to end the fighting and to return to the negotiating table. We believe that the OSCE, through Switzerland, its chairman in office, and through its presence on the ground in Chechnya, can play a crucial role in efforts to restore confidence and to bring the sides together.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her Answer. Is it not the case that there is so much distrust between the parties to the conflict that it is not realistic to expect them to compose their differences? I welcome what the Minister said about the OSCE, but will it not require greater political will on the part of the members of that organisation to achieve demilitarisation and perhaps an interim international administration?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, from our debate last week, the noble Lord knows well the complexity of this issue. It is true that there is deep distrust between the parties. We also know that the OSCE's assistance group working in Chechnya has been successful, as it was last year, in helping the parties to reach a military agreement. However, that broke down after the assassination attempt on Mr. Lobov at the end of September and the terrible action against Mr. Romanov in October. I believe that the chairman in office is absolutely committed to finding a way, on a confidential basis, to bring about mediation between the two parties. We must give our full support to his continued efforts.
Lord Rea: My Lords, if we admit Russia to the Council of Europe on Thursday in Strasbourg, will we not be giving Boris Yeltsin a signal that he can carry on with his disastrous and unsuccessful attempt to achieve a military solution, an attempt which has grossly violated the Geneva Convention of 1949 on the conduct of warfare and the universal United Nations Declaration of Human Rights?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, it is by no means certain what the decision of the members of the Council of Europe will be. However, we believe that having Russia under the influence of the other members of the Council of Europe may be what is needed to bring, about a change in its attitude. Obviously it is a matter of great concern that this apparently internal armed conflict, which has now gone over a certain threshold, may well mean that the principles of the Geneva Convention are being broken. However, I do not see any easy way of resolving the matter because there is a

907
degree of uncertainty. We need to bring the influence of all countries to bear on the Russians and Chechens because both sides are fully engaged in this terrible battle.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, can my noble friend tell the House what is the specific British interest in what she has just described as an essentially internal matter for the Russians?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, it is beyond being an internal matter because the fighting in the area is obviously impeding economic progress in neighbouring areas and neighbouring countries. However, I do believe that it is an internal matter—and that is where there is a great deal of difficulty in relation to the Security Council, as my noble friend well knows. The principles of international humanitarian law seem to be being broken in this case and it may be a matter for the Security Council.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords—
Lord Avebury: My Lords, the noble Baroness mentioned—
Noble Lords: Order!
The Lord Privy Seal (Viscount Cranborne): My Lords, I hesitate to intervene when we are running short of time, but if the House feels able to allow the noble Lord, Lord Dean, to ask his question first, I am sure that the noble Lord on the Liberal Benches will then be able to get in reasonably quickly.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, although one could criticise the actions of Russia in some respects, is it not to be deplored that once again we see innocent civilians being taken as hostages to try to force a conclusion to a military operation? Should we not always condemn that out of hand?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Dean, will know that in our debate last week I condemned the actions of both sides, as I did a few moments ago. The conflict is an absolute tragedy. It has claimed thousands of civilian lives. All those who use hostage-taking, wherever they are, are doing a real disservice even to their cause. There are some very real difficulties here, but I believe that having made clear to the Russian Government that the use of excessive force will not resolve this issue, we have to leave it to the OSCE and give it as much backing and assistance as possible.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, is it not difficult to see how one can save hostages' lives by raining thousands of tonnes of bombs on them? The Minister mentioned the role of the OSCE. What remedy is there within the OSCE's mechanisms for the repeated violations by the Russians of their obligations under the Budapest declaration not to use excessive military force in an internal security situation and to take due care not to harm civilians or their property? Does the noble Baroness have anything to say to the House about the meeting of the CIS Heads of State on the 19th of this
908
month? Does she not consider that it is counterproductive for those heads of state to discuss internal security questions which are properly the concern of the OSCE?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, having heard what I said to the noble Lord. Lord Dean, the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, will have noted that I spoke about the uselessness of excessive force in remedying the total situation. However, the Russian Government, who are clearly responsible for finding an effective way to enable the Chechen people to express their identity within the constitution of the Russian Federation, are not undertaking that responsibility. If that had been discussed by the CIS Heads of State it may have brought them a little nearer to deciding the path ahead. All that I can say to the noble Lord is that it does not help to take sides in this matter. That is why the efforts of the OSCE are so important.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, in replying to the Unstarred Question on Chechnya last week, the Minister suggested that the Tatarstan solution should be pursued. Can the noble Baroness tell the House what evidence there is that either the Russian or the Chechen sides would accept that? In the debate last week the noble Baroness also hinted that that might be used as a bargaining counter with respect to Russian membership of the Council of Europe. Is that in fact so?
Baroness Chalker of Wallasey: My Lords, I think that the noble Baroness has misinterpreted the HansardL record of the debate in respect of her second point. In respect of her first point, I suggested that that may be one of the options that might be investigated.

Family Law Bill [H.L.]
3.8 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
The Chairman of Committees: Clause 5, Amendment No. 35, the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: Before the noble Baroness moves her amendment, perhaps I may raise a question on the grouping which, if it is right, shuts out, irrevocably at least one important amendment. The groupings list groups six amendments with Amendment No. 35 in the name of the noble Baroness, which has just been called. The list then goes on to say in the usual italics:
"35A-39A and CL 6 S/P already debated".

909
On checking Hansard, I find that my recollection is correct. What happened late last night was that the noble Lord, Lord Meston, moved Amendment No. 30 with which several other amendments, including Amendment No. 34, were grouped. Amendment No. 34 was in my name, and I spoke to it. My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor then replied to the noble Lord, Lord Meston, and to myself. The noble Lord, Lord Meston, then withdrew Amendment No. 30. The following amendments up to Amendment No. 34, which was in my name, were not moved so that we never reached Clause 6.
The Chair put the Question, that Clause 5 stand part to which the Committee assented. The noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, then, belatedly because it was a quarter to 11, moved that the House resume. So we never got beyond Clause 5. Amendment No. 35 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, has been called, correctly, but Amendment No. 35A, which is in my name, has not been debated and has not been reached.
The noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, is always a great expert on the groupings. I hope that she will be able to clear up my recollection.
Baroness Trumpington: Amendment No. 35A, which I believe is the one to which the noble and learned Lord is speaking, was included in the grouping with Amendment No. 6. However, as we have not reached Amendment No. 35A, even though it was grouped with Amendment No. 6, the noble and learned Lord is fully able to speak—very briefly of course—to it.
Baroness Faithfull Baroness Faithfull moved Amendment No. 35:
After Clause 5, insert the following new clause—
MARITAL BREAKDOWN: REGARD TO BE HAD TO VIEWS OF CHILD
(". Parties who—

(a) have made a statement of marital breakdown under the provisions of Part I of this Act; and

(b) are making any major decision which involves fulfilling a parental responsibility or exercising a parental right,

shall have regard so far as practicable to the views (if he wishes to express them) of any child for whom they have parental responsibility, taking account of the child's age and maturity.").
The noble Baroness said: The noble Baroness, Lady David, has her name to many amendments, but with great regret she is unable to be here this afternoon. Her son has flown over from America for one day, and this is the day. So, with the Committee's permission, I shall speak for myself and for the noble Baroness.
The Committee will know from the groupings list that the amendments relating to children specifically are Amendments Nos. 35, 52, 81, 90, 91, 118, 124 and 132. I shall speak briefly to all of them. As a preamble, I have to say that these eight amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady David, and myself relate to children of divorced parents.
I know that all Members of the Committee will agree that divorce is a sad and damaging event in the life of any child. Children are on the no-win side. Parents
910
sometimes do not realise the damage which is being done to children. If the parents stay together and yet have an uncompromising attitude of anger and distress towards each other, that is bad for children, as was stated by the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, and the right revered Prelate the Bishop of Liverpool. If the children leave their parents, or the parents separate and the child stays with one of them, that is something which distresses children beyond words. It is something that remains with them for the rest of their lives.
I have often had to deal with children of divorced parents. They say to me, "Why were we never asked what we wanted?" Children are not asked what they want. I do not contend that children should demand and get what they want; but I believe that the courts and the parents should understand what it is that their children need and want. On many occasions what a court decides is just what the child does not want. The courts should know that. So Amendment No. 35 seeks to ensure, first, that parents talk to their children, possibly jointly, about what is happening. If that is not possible, or the parents say that they just could not do that, as things stand the mediation service cannot do that for the child unless the parents give permission.
In the amendment I am saying that a requirement should be laid down, either on the face of the Bill in a schedule or in guidance, that the children's views should be known. I am asking for no more than that. I hope that we shall be able to persuade parents themselves to talk to their children without acrimony or animosity so that the children know that they have at least been heard, even if the outcome is not what they want.
Amendment No. 81 is in the name of myself and the noble Baroness, Lady David. It is a new clause which provides that:
"(1) The Lord Chancellor may make regulations to provide for a special children's officer to be attached to the family court care centres.
(2) The regulations shall make provision for the special children's officer to make appropriate arrangements on behalf of children whose parents—

(a) have made a statement of marital breakdown under this Act, or

(b) have taken or are taking proceedings under Part II of the Children Act 1989".

This amendment is attached to the previous one because the noble Baroness, Lady David, recommends that there should be someone to find out what the children want if the parents have been unable to help them. Children have often written to the judge to tell him that what has happened is not what they want. This amendment, together with Amendment No. 35, is a plea to the Committee to ensure that somewhere in the Bill the children's views and feelings are taken into account when an order is made. I beg to move.
Baroness Elles: I support the helpful amendments which have been introduced by my noble friend Lady Faithfull and by the noble Baroness, Lady David, who we regret is not here today. When we were debating the position of children in the Bill yesterday, she had the kindness to agree, after I had spoken, that the position

911
of children was not dealt with fully in the Bill. Therefore I support all the amendments proposed by my noble friend.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: I apologise to the Committee for not having taken part in the debate previously. I am trying to recover from 'flu but it is overwhelming me again. However, I feel most strongly about the two amendments under discussion. I have experience of dealing with marriages that have gone wrong and of dealing with small children in a court of law and I believe that the amendments are vitally important. I do not know what I should have done without a special children's mediator or helper. I found that with the best will in the world parents believe that they are communicating with their children. However, it often happens that they have not communicated and that children have held back. The only person that the children will talk to is a children's officer. With those few comments, I warmly support the two amendments.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: It has been a criticism of the Bill that it pays insufficient attention to the welfare of children; that it is wrong to speak of a marriage having irretrievably broken down if there is a young child for whom the parents still have responsibilities; and that it is wrong to talk of the spouses being locked in a loveless marriage if there is a young child who can receive and reciprocate love. Throughout discussions on the Bill and the White Paper, and going back to 1969, attention has been focused on the parents and their wishes rather than on the child's. The Child Support Act was launched with a White Paper which stated that children come first. Quite obviously, they do not under this Bill. Therefore, it is of great importance that the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, has drawn attention to the fact that the courts should be cognisant and constantly vigilant as to the welfare of the child. The question is, how should that be done?
The noble Baroness wants the parents to speak to the child in question. In some circumstances that may be suitable but more often than not it is unsuitable because the parents try to influence the child in favour of their own interests, and ultimately, and generally disastrously, in favour of a new spouse who is put forward as a surrogate parent.
In my time, which is some time ago, the courts were most reluctant to see children embroiled in a divorce at all because it did far more harm than good. I shall be corrected by the noble Lord, Lord Meston, if the practice has changed but I do not believe that it has. My practice was that if the parents were agreed as to the arrangements for the child—the court had to be satisfied under Section 41 of the 1973 Act—and if the court was satisfied that the parents had agreed, it almost always considered that that was better than any solution which was imposed by the court contrary to the parents' wishes. Therefore, there was no reason to bring in a child in those circumstances and there were several reasons for not doing so.
On the other hand, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, that it is necessary that the child's interests should be considered. Welfare officers,
912
experienced probation officers, are attached to the court. They were recruited into a welfare office by my predecessor Lord Merriman. They act as mediators, and nowadays a great deal of voluntary mediation is offered. In Amendment No. 35A, I have suggested as an alternative that any child should be represented by the Official Solicitor who can report to the court. He is quite impartial and detached and very much used to representing the interests of children. It is one of his every-day jobs. Generally, an assistant official solicitor is exclusively occupied with that task. I believe that that course is preferable to the suggestion that a children's officer should be attached to every court, as suggested in one of the amendments. I cannot help believing that the Official Solicitor is the right person and can provide the right guidance to the mediator or, if it comes to it, to the adjudicating court. I shall be anxious to hear the views of my noble and learned friend on that matter because he has constant contact with the Official Solicitor.
Baroness Lockwood: I too support the amendments. Like other noble Lords, I believe that the interests of the child are absolutely vital and therefore should be given more prominence under the Bill. The first of the two amendments brings the views of the child to the attention of the court at an early stage in the proceedings. Under the Children Act 1989 the interests and the views of the child are ascertained at a later date in the proceedings. Surely it is better that the child's views are known at an earlier stage when one hopes that there will be moves towards a reconciliation or, if not, when conciliation is taking place.
I also support the second amendment, which provides for representation of the child if necessary by an officer. That is important because I too believe that there will be occasions when the child's views can best be represented by an independent person on behalf of the child, irrespective of the views of the parents.
A further important point is that the amendments meet the requirements of the European Convention on the Exercise of Children's Rights, which we have ratified. It requires that the views of children should be ascertained when important matters affecting the future of the children within the family are being decided.
3.30 p.m.
The Earl of Onslow: We are in danger of getting into a slight muddle. If two people are hell bent on divorce it does not matter whether little Tommy, aged seven, says, "I do not want my parents to get divorced". It seems to me that the road down which we ought to go is to say that the interests rather than the views of children should be taken care of. It would be totally wrong to say, "We cannot have Mr. and Mrs. Bloggins getting divorced because their little Tommy doesn't want them to". That seems to me to be very nearly where the amendment is leading.
What I think would be sensible and reasonable, however, would be to try to move mediation a hit further down the line of reconciliation or to take it into account, and then it might be possible for the conciliator to use the child's views in its own interests—because it must

913
be in its own interests that its parents stay reasonably happily married—to help bring some form of conciliation into it. But it is honestly no good taking into account the views of a child whose parents are hell bent on bashing each other over the head with a milk bottle. That was brought out last week by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, when I believe he said—I shall certainly be happy to stand corrected if my memory is at fault—that when his parents were divorced he experienced almost a sense of relief because the fighting had stopped. I hope I have not stated the noble Earl's feelings wrongly in that. Am I right?
Earl Russell: It is a paraphrase, if I may say so. I agree with most of what the noble Earl said, but perhaps it applies rather more to yesterday's amendment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, than it does to today's the amendment of the noble Baroness. I support the amendment of the noble Baroness.
Lord Murray of Epping Forest: I find myself rather more optimistic than the noble Earl, Lord Onslow. It is surely not impossible that if there is a clear and definite obligation laid by the Act on the need to take account not only of the interests but of the views of a child, and that is explicated and spelt out, it may be just possible that it could make the warring parents address themselves to this enormously important aspect of their marriage and pay just a little more attention to it. If, by putting this on the face of the Bill, we produced in only a handful of cases a balancing factor which perhaps tipped the couple away from divorce, then I believe that that in itself would totally justify the amendment, which I would very much support.
It is important, as the noble Baroness emphasised, for the court and the mediators not only to take into account the interests of a child but also its views. The child should be told what is happening and given support where necessary and also advice. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, said that it is a matter of argument as to who can best provide the advice. I tend to think that specialised officers would be better than the Official Solicitor, but that is a matter for discussion.
We should recognise that this is not a divorce Bill. It is not just a matter of the divorce of the parents. This is a family law Bill. I would emphasise that the children themselves are at least as important as the warring parents and should have their proper place in the context of this Bill.
Lord Elton: Your Lordships have not so far looked at Amendment No. 118 which falls within this group. It requires a child protection agency to provide help and advice to children of divorced parents, who find themselves disadvantaged by the terms laid down by the court. I do not suppose that we are meant to crawl over that too closely and ask at what stage a child may find itself disadvantaged, but I think it would be proper to ask why we are treating children as all being the same. How is the agency to give advice to a child of, say, three or of three months and how will that differ between a child of 13 or 17? These are practical and important
914
questions which need to be resolved. I take it, therefore, that this is only a probing amendment because clearly it would not serve as it now stands.
Coming back to the original Amendment No. 35, if the amendment really laid on the parents a duty—which clearly in moral law they already have—to consider the interests of the child there would be no harm in it at all and it would be very much a matter of apple pie and mother love as being something which one could not criticise. However, it does require the parents to have regard to the views of a child if it wishes to express them; and again, of course, the child may be of any age, even an infant. I hope that your Lordships will remember what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, said and the light thrown on this by my noble friend Lord Onslow. Many of us who support this Bill do so precisely because it gives a narrow avenue in which it is possible to some limited extent to protect children from the devastating effects of being mixed up in a divorce.
In that system the very hardest thing a loving parent has to do is to tell the child what is happening and get the child's view on it without involving the child in the battle, because inevitably a divorce represents a period of enormous strain and very often of powerful conflict. If we actually make an enactment which requires the child to be drawn into that conflict without any reference in it to any necessity to protect that child from the emotional damage which can result, without thinking through the role of any third party, I believe your Lordships would be acting irresponsibly. I hope that we can look at this with great care and certainly not rush ahead today.
Baroness Hamwee: I also support the noble Baroness's amendment. In doing so perhaps I might repeat some of the concern expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, but perhaps in slightly different words. As I understand the noble Baroness, she is suggesting that it is not possible to have regard to the views of a child without supporting that child through the process and making certain that the real views are expressed, which may not necessarily come out in the first words that are used. It is more than simply asking one question and listening to one answer.
My concern is, taking up what the noble Lord, Lord Elton, said, the approach involving a welfare officer and whoever else it may be. This is so important and the balance is quite difficult to achieve, I suspect, between ascertaining the views of the child and avoiding the child feeling responsible for the outcome because of its expression of views. I am certain that the noble Baroness has that kind of concern very much in mind.
I am not sure whether the noble Baroness has spoken to the amendment relating to the Information Act, which comes later in this group, Amendment No. 91. I tend to the view that it is better not to put on the face of the Bill the precise mechanism that is required, if only for the reason that methods of providing information are changing very fast. There may be some children in the year 2000 who will only be able to deal with

915
information if it comes in the form of a CD-ROM. In the space of 10 years things may have moved on a little further.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I should like fairly briefly to support this group of amendments because I think that so far we have not sufficiently taken into account the interests, and certainly not the views, of children. I think we have to bear in mind that once a child or children have arrived the marriage then does not simply belong to the husband and wife; it belongs to the family. Therefore, there is certainly an argument for taking the views of the children into account where possible and, indeed, for taking into account formally the interests of the children. I believe that the amendments direct our attention to that important aim.
I have to tell the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, that there is great deal of evidence to show that children would prefer a marriage to remain intact, even though that marriage may well have some conflict within it. I see that the noble Earl wishes to respond. I give way.
The Earl of Onslow: I am much obliged. I completely agree with that view. My parents were divorced. The one thing that I did not want them to do was to divorce. I am sure that that is what children think, but it may not always be in their interests. I am advocating the argument that it is their interests rather than their views which should be taken primarily into account.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: Yes. I perfectly understand that argument. But, where possible, I believe that the views of children should be heard.
All too often, when parents decide to divorce, they do not even think about the views of the children; indeed, many of them believe that their children have no view at all. The proposed amendments would at least ensure that parents addressed the problems which their divorce might bring about, especially as regards their children.
Lord Annan: I very much hope that the amendment moved by the noble Baroness will be sympathetically considered. The noble Earl is right to say that the children's interests should come first. However, I believe that the noble Baroness made very clear in her speech that their views should be taken into account, but that the settlement might not be in accordance with those views.
I tend rather to agree with my noble and learned kinsman Lord Simon who suggested that the Official Solicitor was, perhaps, the right channel for communicating or obtaining such views. However, I very much hope that a sympathetic official from the Official Solicitor's office would be involved, as I have always imagined that the Official Solicitor somewhat resembled Dickens' Mr. Jaggers.
Lord Elton: Does the noble Lord envisage that avuncular figure addressing a child of two and, if so, how?
Lord Annan: The noble Lord is entitled to mock the amendment in that way. If the child is two years of age
916
it would possibly have no view on the matter. But surely we accept that our officials do bring common sense into their judgments.
Lord Elton: I am in no way mocking the amendment. I regard this as something painfully close to experience. We have a great duty to do our best with it. I was trying to suggess—although, perhaps I did not spend long enough on it with just one sentence—that there should be some question of a guardian ad litem, or some other source, to interpose between an infant and the law.
Baroness Seear: If it is to be a guardian ad !item or the probation officer attached to the court—and it is very likely to be the latter—that underlines the importance of giving the right training to such officials. Indeed, it is important for those probation officers to receive the right kind of training, and not the kind of training with which we have been presented in recent Home Office programmes.
Baroness Faithfull: Perhaps I may make a few comments before my noble and learned friend responds. The intention behind the amendment is to ensure that there is a good relationship as regards the child, the mother and the father, whatever the circumstances may be. Mediators in the mediation service do not see the child by law, but they do bring to the notice of both parents the fact that each of them should try to have a relationship with the child and that they should be able to talk to the child in a way that is not acrimonious. That should help the child or children to understand that the fault is not theirs and enable them to build up a relationship with both parents.
3.45 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: It is clear that the amendments to which my noble friend has spoken and which the noble Baroness, Lady David, with her great experience in the area, supports—although, sadly, she is not able to be with us today—draw our attention to an extremely important aspect of the matter. The need for considering the children's interests and also for having regard in appropriate circumstances to their views is quite fundamental.
By way of introduction, perhaps I should point out that we do have in place the Children Act 1989 which contains very clear legislation dealing with matters which relate to contact with and the residence of children. Indeed, there are provisions for guardians ad litem and for the Official Solicitor to be involved in some cases, and so on. Therefore, assuming that it reaches the statute book, the legislation will not stand by itself.
I believe that I am entitled to say the Children Act has proved to be extremely good as a basic structure for the law in this area. I believe that those who practise in the area universally agree with that view. Of course, there are questions about some other aspects of that Act which will be dealt with later in this legislation regarding regulation in respect of schools, and so on. However, the part of the Children Act that deals with the matters now under discussion has, I believe, proved to be very satisfactory.

917
One of the most satisfactory aspects of the Act is that it has generated a great deal of interdisciplinary co-operation on matters affecting children; for example, psychiatrists, child psychiatrists, doctors and the like have been able to come together with lawyers in trying to promote the interests of the children. Of course there are difficulties involved, one of which is the unnecessary delay which sometimes occurs in such matters when a number of experts are involved. However, we are attempting to tackle that situation. I want to emphasise that the Children Act stands very much at the forefront of matters concerned with children.
I take the sense of the proposed amendments to be that the children affected by divorce should very much be kept in mind. I have said before that one of the principal reasons that I sought to bring the Bill before this Chamber is just so that the effect of divorce on children should be as minimal as is possible, thus enabling both parents to maintain a relationship with their children after they divorce. I believe that that is a most important consideration in the future development of the children after the sad event and trauma of divorce.
Of course, there are other questions to be considered. One of the most difficult is the issue of one parent or the other seeking to indoctrinate the children with views that are adverse to the other parent. Those Members of the Committee who have experience in dealing with such matters have, I believe, found it to be one of the most difficult situations to tackle. Once a child has been indoctrinated, let us say—and this is just an illustration, because it could obviously happen the other way around—by the mother against the father, it becomes very difficult to maintain satisfactory contact between the child and the father. Very often the child gets into a state when the contact starts, and the father has little opportunity to influence the child to try to change the situation.
Similarly, the court would have great difficulty in such a case because the mother may say, "It is terribly bad for the child; it is upsetting the child terribly. We can't handle this". Therefore, the contact would have to stop. However, the court may say, "You must allow it", and, ultimately the wife may say, "It is just doing the child a great deal of harm". Of course, the only real and ultimate enforcement is some kind of contempt proceedings, and the benefit of that to the child would be absolutely negative. Indeed, I have been in such a position as a judge. One feels powerless. Therefore, it is most important that we do what we can to prevent such a situation developing.
My submission to Members of the Committee is that the most likely avenue for help in that connection is the discussion that the mediator will set up. I believe that my noble friend really took up that point towards the end of her address.
There are two possibilities. First, there is the possibility where the mediator deems it right, in the circumstances of the particular family, that the children should be involved in the discussion if that is appropriate. If it is not appropriate, my noble friend
918
Lady Faithfull has experience of the panel system in Scotland which is used for dealing with children who are suggested to be in need of compulsory measures of care. That is a kind of a round table discussion in which the panel members and the parents and child—and sometimes the child's headmaster or teacher, or some other official from the social work department—take part.
If the family situation was such that a reasonable discussion would be possible in that form, that would be a good way of ascertaining the views of the children and helping to protect their interests. If that was not possible, it may be that a separate meeting between the mediator, or an assistant to the mediator, and the children would be required. Then, informed by that meeting, the mediator may be able to advance matters.
As my noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale said, I have responsibility for the Official Solicitor's Department. I am second to none in borrowing the expertise and care of the Official Solicitor, but I am most anxious that the expertise of the Official Solicitor is not used in cases where he does not have anything particular to contribute. The Children Act 1989 makes quite elaborate provisions to allow for guardians ad litem, and so on, depending on the circumstances of the case, if there needs to he legal discussion about what should happen to the children.
I do not find it easy to accept the detail of these amendments for a number of reasons which perhaps I should spend a little time to point out.
As to Amendment No. 35, there is the problem of parental responsibility. Parental responsibility does not always coincide with children who are children of the family, and it is really the children who are affected by the divorce that must be taken into account. For example, step-children are often involved in the family and would be affected by a breakdown of that family, even though there is no parental responsibility. I have already mentioned the difficulty of getting children to take sides, and so on.
As to Amendment No. 81, this matter is being developed in relation to the situation under the Children Act. The officer involved here would have a multiplicity of roles in providing information and advice, liaising with children's attendance or otherwise at court and advising on whether separate representation is required. These are rather different functions and it would be difficult for them to be performed by one person. Court staff are well used to dealing with queries from families, for example with respect to arrangements available for children to attend court. All care and family hearing centres have dedicated family sections whose staff have specific expertise in this area. Although of course they do not have advisory functions, they can give information.
The court service is currently considering a recommendation of the Children Act Advisory Committee—which is monitoring the way in which the Children Act is functioning in practise—that a liaison officer should be appointed to each court dealing with

919
family matters so that primary responsibility for administrative issue concerning children is vested in one person. My noble friend and your Lordships know that the court may ask a welfare officer to prepare a welfare report. That welfare officer is a member of the probation service, but the welfare service has developed a considerable expertise and I believe and hope that that will continue.
The Bill contains provisions in relation to Section 41 of the Act which give power to the court, if it thinks that an order is required and that further delay is required, to postpone the granting of the divorce until these matters are satisfactorily dealt with.
I do not think my noble friend spoke particularly to the later amendments—if we get to them, a fairly detailed consideration will be required—but, on the principle of the matter, I would suggest that the best way of handling this is that it be a specific part of the remit of the mediators that these matters should be taken into account, with the court having the responsibility of being satisfied with the arrangements for the children of the marriage—which is already provided for in the Bill—and with the powers that flow from that, to which I have referred.
Baroness Faithfull: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord. All the amendments on the list and in the Bill have been spoken to, and replied to by the noble and learned Lord. There is one outstanding amendment to which I would draw your Lordships' notice, and ask for the views of the noble and learned Lord. When the divorce proceedings are over the issue of access becomes a burning question, as does the issue of children growing up and changing their views. Has the noble and learned Lord considered in this Bill that there should be somebody a child can turn to?
I speak with very deep feeling because for two years I had to be in every Sunday evening when a father refused to return his children to their mother after an access visit. I had to go and fetch the children, quite rightly, because it was the court's order that they should be brought back.
It is very difficult because many parents—it might be the mother, it might be the father—make excuses that the child cannot go, that the child is ill, that the child has a football match to take part in, and access visits are not adhered to by the parents. Therefore, the child ought to have somebody that he can go to, to say, "I want to see my other parent but the parent that I live with does not let me." This is something that has not been covered and needs to be covered.
If a mother has custody of a child—particularly a boyar the boy gets older he has a feeling and a need to see his father much more, so the order could be varied. This is Amendment No. 118 to which I draw your Lordships' attention.
I have not spoken to all the amendments, but the subjects have been covered and answered—except for this one—by the noble and learned Lord, and therefore 1 beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 35.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale Lord Simon of Glaisdale had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 35A:
After Clause 5, insert the following new clause—
REPRESENTATION OF MINOR BY OFFICIAL SOLICITOR
(" . In any proceedings under this Part any child of the family under the age of sixteen years shall be represented by the Official Solicitor, who shall submit a written report to any mediator or court considering the child, and who may (and shall if so requested by a mediator or a court) make oral representation.").
The noble and learned Lord said: I spoke about the substance of this amendment on Amendment No. 35, so I can deal with it very shortly. I strongly agree with what my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor said about the danger and prevalence of indoctrination. One was told all too often that everything possible had been done but the child had an invincible repugnance to seeing his mother or his father, as the case might be. That immediately set alarm bells ringing. For that reason it is better that the child should be kept as far as possible out of the situation which, as hypothesised, has reached the stage where one parent has filed a statement saying that he or she believes that the marriage has irretrievably broken down.
There will be some cases where the views of the child may profitably be entertained, but very few. Therefore, I tend to agree with the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, that it is far more important that the interests of the child rather than the view of the child should be represented. In the amendment I have suggested that that should be by the Official Solicitor, who is the normal mediator (and I use that term untechnically) between a child and a court.
I do not propose to move the amendment unless any Member of the Committee would like to speak to it.
[Amendment No. 35A not moved.]
[Amendment No. 35B not moved.]
4 p.m.
Clause 6 [Declaration to accompany application]:
[Amendments Nos. 36 to 38 not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 6 shall stand part of the Bill?
The Lord Chancellor: As I explained in relation to an earlier amendment, I have replaced the effect of Clause 6 in an earlier amendment. I believe that that improves matters. Therefore, I beg to move that Clause 6 do not stand part of the Bill.
Clause 6 negatived.
Clause 7 [Period for reflection and consideration]:
[Amendments Nos. 38A to 39A not moved.]
Lord Irvine of Lairg Lord Irvine of Lairg moved Amendment No. 40:
Page 4, line 14, at end insert ("during which the parties may attempt reconciliation for a period of three months, or periods in total aggregating three months, without prejudice to any of their rights under this Act and should be encouraged to consider attempting reconciliation by the mediator in any mediation which may take place under section 12 of this Act").
The noble Lord said: I rise to speak to Amendments Nos. 40 and 55, both of which stand in my name and the name of my noble and learned friend Lord Archer of Sandwell.
A disappointing feature of the Bill is that it does not clearly establish the relationships between mediation within the year for reflection and consideration, the concept of the year itself and attempts at reconciliation, either within that year or beyond that year. It is because we value the institution of marriage so highly that we wish the Bill to recognise in the clearest terms the public interest in promoting reconciliation and, as a result, the public interest in upholding the institution of marriage. My noble friend Lord Stallard called attention specifically to that feature of the Bill in his speech at Second Reading, which is reported at col. 746 of Hansard for 30th November 1995. I believe this to be of central importance to the Bill and shall therefore spend a little time on it.
The first step is to look at what the Bill expressly provides. Under Clause 7 the year for reflection and consideration must pass before an application for a divorce order may be made by reference to a statement under Clause 4 that the marriage has broken down irretrievably. Under Clause 7(3) the period for reflection and consideration is one year, beginning with the day on which the statement is received by the court.
I invite the Committee to give close attention to subsections (5) and (6) of Clause 7. Subsection (5) provides that:
"Subsection (6) applies if a notice requiring time to attempt reconciliation is given to the court by the parties (acting jointly) at any time during the period for reflection and consideration".
Subsection (6) states:
"Any time falling—

(a) on or after the day on which the notice is received by the court, and

(b) before the day on which either of the parties gives notice to the court that the attempted reconciliation has been unsuccessful, is to be disregarded in calculating the period for reflection and consideration".

Finally, subsection (7) provides that:
"Where a continuous period of more than 18 months is to be disregarded under subsection (6), any application by either of the parties for a divorce order or for a separation order must be by reference to a new statement made at any time after the end of the 18 months".
When I first read those provisions I thought that they operated as a disincentive to stepping back from the brink and attempting reconciliation. We are concerned with parties who start out in the belief that their marriage has broken down, who serve a statement to that effect and who want to be released but cannot be released until a year has elapsed. Yet there may be nagging doubts. At any stage in the mediation process the cold realities of the consequences of divorce may be brought home to the parties. They should be told by the mediator that attempting reconciliation remains an option but that option is not precluded by participation in mediation. Also, there should be no disincentives put in the way of attempting reconciliation during the year for reflection and conciliation.
My first thought was that that provision penalised an attempt at reconciliation when the attempt at reconciliation ends in failure because its effect is that the year for reflection and consideration ceases to run while reconciliation is being attempted. It was that thinking that lay behind the detail of Amendment No. 40. I thought that Clause 7(2), combined with Clause 7(5) and (6), amounted to a warning: beware if you attempt a reconciliation which fails because you will then delay your divorce by the length of the period of your attempt which has sadly failed. I now think that I was probably wrong and that is not the intention of the Bill. However, I still desire to say that the Bill is seriously lacking in clarity and should be strengthened.
The basic problem seems to be that it defines what is to happen if the parties give notice to the court that they require time to attempt reconciliation but does not provide what is to happen where parties attempt reconciliation during the year for reflection and consideration but give no notice to the court under Clause 7(5). That, I think, is a great deficiency.
Clause 7(5) deals with attempts at reconciliation which the parties notify to the court. It does not deal with attempts at reconciliation which take place during the year for reflection and consideration but which are not notified to the court. The parties could be forgiven for thinking, standing the appearance of the Bill, that that is not an option available to them.
I allowed myself to be misled into thinking—I hope that I was misled—that the only attempts at reconciliation which the Bill recognised were those of which the court was given notice by the parties. However, I hope and now think that I am wrong about that. As I now see it—the noble and learned Lord will correct me if I am wrong about the intention of the Bill—Clause 7(5) and (6) are intended to be beneficial. They provide that while the year for reflection and consideration is running—let us say, for example, that it has run for three months—the parties can give notice to the court of attempted reconciliation and as much as 18 months may elapse without extinguishing that part of the year which has already run. If at the end of the period of attempted reconciliation, which may be up to a maximum of 18 months, the attempt proves to have failed, the parties then have credit for the part of the year before their attempt. The year starts to run again and at the end of the year application for a divorce order can be made. If it is not immediately made, the parties then have a further period of six months within which they may apply for a divorce order under Clause 4(3)(b).
The Lord Chancellor: It may help to shorten the matter if I confirm that the intention of the Bill—I certainly would wish to consider whether it can he clarified—is to give parties the option of stopping the clock running so that the period of attempted reconciliation is additional to the year. If the parties go for, say, a year trying to reconcile, then that is not counted within the period.
My noble friend Lady Young talked yesterday about all that had to be done within the period, and spoke for a lengthening of the period. If the parties are able to try to effect a reconciliation, the period spent on that stops

923
the clock. There is no question of that, as it were, being counted against them in the running of the period. The noble Lord is right in saying that that is the intention, and not what he originally thought that the intention was.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: I am relieved to know that my second thoughts on this subject were correct in the view of the noble and learned Lord. An attempt may be made at conciliation up to a maximum of 18 months without that stopping the one year clock running; and that clock will resume running after the expiry of the failed period of reconciliation of 18 months or less. That I understand.
That allows me to come straight to the deficiency in the Bill as I see it. What is the position, not expressly dealt with in the Bill, if the parties attempt a reconciliation without giving any such notice? I think, but I am not sure, that the intention must be that the year for reflection and consideration continues to run concurrently with the attempt at reconciliation. If it fails, the period of their attempt counts towards the year and, as the parties are determined on divorce, application may be made within six months of expiry of the year under Clause 4(3)(b). In other words, if you invoke Clause 7(5)(6) and (7), in the language of the noble and learned Lord, you stop the clock running. But if you attempt a reconciliation without invoking those provisions, and without giving any notice to the court, as I understand it you do not stop the clock running.
I have to say that I see nothing wrong with that provided that I am right in my supposition that that is what the Bill intends and means although it does not address attempts at reconciliation not notified to the court. It appears to me that there is no inconsistency between the year for reflection and consideration being treated as continuing without suspension during a period of attempted reconciliation. I would say that by definition actually attempting reconciliation is the highest order of reflection and consideration of whether a marriage can be saved. The best way to reflect and consider is to try out the marriage again in a spirit of attempting reconciliation.
I am anxious to know whether the second part of my interpretation of the provisions—arrived at, I have to say, with a certain amount of difficulty—be correct. The noble and learned Lord has said that I am right about the intention of Clause 7(5),(6) and (7). I am relieved at that. However, I am concerned to know whether I am right in the second part of my understanding of what the Bill must intend. In my view, it is critical that the Bill expressly addresses attempts made at reconciliation not notified to the court during the period of a year for reflection and consideration.
Therefore I suggest to the Committee that the provisions must be looked at closely to ensure that they lay down a clear and unambiguous scheme for encouraging attempts at reconciliation.
It would be inappropriate to press Amendment No. 40 because, as the noble and learned Lord confirmed, I have now understood properly the intent of the
924
provisions which are on the face of the Bill. However, I believe that clarity requires that at the end of Clause 7(2)—I invite the noble and learned Lord to give thought to this—after the words,
"That period is to be known as the period for reflection and consideration",
there should be added,
"and may include any period within that period during which the parties attempt reconciliation".
That makes it plain that the parties can attempt reconciliation within the year for reflection and consideration without having to follow a court-based procedure of giving a notice to the court.
I also suggest that the clause should make it express that attempts at reconciliation, not the subject of any notice to the court and therefore outside Clause 7(5) and (6), may take place during the year for reflection and consideration without prejudice to any of the parties' rights under the Act; and, separately—and, with respect, I suggest to the noble and learned Lord, importantly—there should be an additional subsection which provides that the parties should be encouraged by the mediator to consider attempting reconciliation.
As I observed in Committee yesterday, I well appreciate that mediation is not about reconciliation. The mediator is not a reconciliator. He is a mediator of solutions for the parties to try to agree once the one issue upon which they have agreed is that their marriage has broken down. I see no reason why the Committee should not put the mediators under a statutory duty to encourage the parties to consider attempting reconciliation. That does not mean, and it would be unwelcome to the mediators if it did mean, that the mediators are obliged to engage in a process of counselling, to try to persuade the parties to he reconciled. I entirely accept that that is not what mediation is about. However, what I am suggesting is that the mediators should be told that in the course of mediation they must say something to this effect: "Do consider attempting reconciliation. Although you have entered this mediation process, you should not think that that forecloses the option. That option remains". If the parties were to express an interest in pursuing the option, then the function of the mediator will be to refer them to counselling, with that in view.
Those are the proposals which I now think it right to put before the Committee for consideration: to ensure that the relationship between mediation and reconciliation is clearly established alongside a duty in the mediators to inform parties who come before them in the mediation process that mediation is not a process which has a momentum of its own and precludes the option of reconciliation. On the contrary, that option remains and should be followed by the parties, if they so desire. I beg to move.
The Earl of Onslow: I have listened carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Irvine. It seems to me that if peradventure there should be a change of government in the near future and if he should be sitting on the Woolsack, if he cannot now understand and makes heavy weather of the Bill, either he will be a rotten Labour Lord Chancellor or the Bill is not drafted clearly.

925
With the greatest respect to him, I believe that the latter is more likely than the former. If that is the case, surely we should make the wording absolutely clear. If he has found it difficult to understand, I am sure that other people will find it just as difficult.
A further point struck me. It is that the clock ticks and there is a period of mediation and reconciliation. As the Committee knows, the route down which we ought to go is mediation and conciliation, if possible. However, if mediation fails, people must wait longer for a divorce, which will be a disincentive for the conciliation process to work. I suggest that the Bill is one of the most socially important which Members of the Committee will have before them. If we are to get the Bill right then we must achieve the careful balance between making a clean break, with the minimum upset, and making the maximum effort at mediation. We must get that balance right, and therefore it must be absolutely clear on the face of the Bill exactly what we mean. We ourselves must be equally clear. If the noble Lord, Lord Irvine, is to be anything other than a rotten Labour Lord Chancellor, I am sure that we ought to get the wording slightly clearer than he finds it.
Lord Marsh: It is important to draw a clear line between reconciliation and mediation. When the majority of couples reach the stage of the seriousness that we are considering, with the desire firmly reached by at least one party and frequently by both parties, there. is a great danger. If all goes well, the mediator has the ability to turn the discussions into a civilised arrangement, a civilised break-up, certainly to the benefit of the children. There is a danger, however, that at that stage the mediator may begin to recommend conciliation to people who, as the noble Lord said earlier, may well have had many weekends away together in the hope that things would all come right. They may have had a holiday together in that hope; they may have spent endless hours discussing the matter. At a point where they are trying to get together and make the best of the separation in everyone's interests, they may suddenly be told by the person seeking to achieve that: "Why don't you try reconciliation?" If I understood the noble Lord correctly—and that may not be the case—if that were to happen, it would devalue the role of the mediator which is practical and important.
Lord Coleraine: The noble Lord, Lord Irvine, referred to Clause 7 which I find comparatively straightforward and clear cut. It may be a fault on my part and I wish to test my understanding by asking the noble Lord to explain the exact significance of the words,
"without prejudice to any of their rights under this Act".
He proposes, under Amendment No. 40, to add those words to Clause 7. It seems to me that, during the period for reflection and consideration, whether they attempt to reconcile for periods of more or less than three months, there is nothing in the Bill to suggest that it would be
926
prejudicial to any of their rights under the Act. That is where my difficulty lies. If the noble Lord could explain that, it would be helpful to me.
Baroness Hamwee: With other Members of the Committee, my noble friend Lord Meston has proposed amendments within this group. They are Amendments Nos. 54, 56, 58 and 60, which arise from the anxiety expressed in large part by the noble Lord, Lord Irvine, as to the precise meaning of Clause 7.
In Amendment No. 54, in relation to the need to give notice in order to stop the clock, my noble friend has provided an insertion that:
"no period during which the parties resumed living with each other shall count as part of the period of reflection and consideration".
I know that his anxiety is to deal with the underlying point rather than to press the detail of the amendment.
I turn to Amendment No. 56 which proposes to replace the expression "is to be disregarded" with the words "shall not count" as to that period. Presumably the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will confirm this, but my noble friend is worried about what is meant by the suggestion that the time between the two notices should not count. The wording could mean that the time between the two notices is not to affect or interrupt the 12-month period. My noble friend had difficulty in interpreting that phrase and I share his problems with exactly what is meant by "is to be disregarded". I understand that the words "shall not count" have been borrowed by my noble friend from Section 2(5) of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973.
Finally, Amendments Nos. 58 and 60 have been proposed in order to question the period of 18 months. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord could say why that is thought to be the appropriate period. If 12 months is a sufficient period in which to establish that the marriage has irretrievably broken down, why is it not equally sufficient to require the parties to re-start the process if they want a divorce?
I should first have apologised to the Committee that my noble friend is unable to be present until a little later today.
Viscount Brentford: I believe that Clause 7 strikes a fair balance between the conflicting interests of mediation and reconciliation. I do not favour Amendment No. 40 in itself and perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Irvine, will not press it. However, I am quite attracted to the strength of reminding the mediator of the possibility of reconciliation. I accept that he is not there to carry out reconciliation.
I was most impressed by what my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor said yesterday. He said that at any time mediation might throw up a desire for reconciliation when the future was looked at by the couple in conflict. It is important that the mediator hears that point in mind. I do not believe that he has a statutory duty in that respect. It may well be that an amendment can be written in to remind him that he should have that duty at any time if reconciliation seems to be on the cards.

927
The formality of serving notice appears to me to be important if the clock is to stop for that period. During the year of mediation undoubtedly there will be times when the couple will want to have a go at reconciliation. They may take a week or two and will not bother with formal notice, but the mediator will bear in mind the legal niceties in discussion with them. On the whole, I believe that Clause 7;strikes the right balance and I commend it as drafted, except for possibly writing in at some stage the legal requirement for the mediator to bear reconciliation in mind, although he is not himself the reconciliator.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: Perhaps I should say the following in response to the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine. I would be the first to be relieved if I were worrying about nothing, but I do not think I am. I worry about the undoubted fact that on its face the Bill does not address the situation where during the year for reflection and consideration an attempt at reconciliation is made without any notice being given to the court.
I suggested on my feet that a way of dealing with it might be to add to Clause 7(2) the words, "and may include any period within that period during which the parties attempt reconciliation". My reason for doing so was to make clear that in such a circumstance the clock governing the year for reflection and consideration would continue to run. If it did not run and an attempt at reconciliation without notice to the court—I venture to suggest that that will happen much more than where' notice is given—did not count towards the mandatory year before a party could apply for a divorce, it would delay the availability of divorce and operate as a disincentive to an attempted reconciliation. That would be contrary to all of our intentions. I hope with that explanation the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, will understand why I am concerned about this matter. It may be that my concern is about to he relieved by the noble and learned Lord, who did not intervene in my observations to say that I was right on this particular point. Perhaps I am worrying about nothing and that attempts at reconciliation not notified to the court do not prevent the year from running, and if they fail after the expiry of the year an application for a divorce may be made, just as it can be if an attempt at reconciliation has not been made.
The Lord Chancellor: The intention of Clause 7 is that the parties should reflect on whether or not the marriage can be saved. That is the keynote of the clause. The purpose of that is to enable them to consider in every possible way, including attempts at reconciliation, what can be done. As to the second part of the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Irvine, the intention is that whatever consideration is given to these matters does not stop the clock running, except in the situation where subsections (5) and (6) apply. Put another way, if the parties agree to make a real attempt at reconciliation they can stop the clock running. If everything works the whole business is finished and they go on living together happily as a married couple would like to do. On the other hand, if they have been working at it for three
928
months or so and the attempt fails, instead of the period expiring a year after the notice it will expire 15 months after the notice, because the three-month attempt at reconciliation will not be counted in the year. Surely we are all in favour of doing what we can to encourage reconciliation. Therefore, this gives additional time in which an attempt at reconciliation can be made, but it is a joint effort on the part of two people.
The current law has a somewhat different effect on attempts at reconciliation. Under the present law, if the reconciliation is for an aggregate period of six months or more after the discovery of the adultery complained of, or the final act of behaviour alleged takes place, there is prejudice to the parties in going ahead with a divorce based on that adultery or conduct. We want to do everything possible to facilitate and encourage reconciliation.
Earlier in these debates the Bill was described by an expert on these matters as being clearly drafted. I believe that this is reasonably clear. The noble Lord, Lord Meston, believes that the words "is to be disregarded" may be better replaced by the words "shall not count" or "does not count". I shall certainly take the advice of Parliamentary counsel on that point. When one knows what one wants and reads something it sounds plain, but sometimes when one tries to find out the meaning by reading the words it is not so plain. Therefore, I am at a slight disadvantage in judging the clarity of these provisions. However, I believe that they are reasonably plain on a full reading.
It is important to give consideration to the matter of encouraging the mediator. I believe that the best thing we can do is to see whether or not we can build on a later amendment about codes of practice for mediators. One of the problems to be borne in mind in this connection is that which is brought to me by those who practise in this area, particularly lawyers. The client arrives in the lawyer's office. The first thing the lawyer says, having learned a little bit about the problem, is that the client must think about reconciliation. Having been told what a terrible life the client has had, how awful the whole thing is and how he or she wants to get rid of it as quickly as possible, if the lawyer's first response is that reconciliation must be attempted the client will probably say, "I will have to go to another lawyer because you are not on my side". I am sure that others with experience of these matters will know about that. If the mediator begins by trying to press people to become reconciled a question may be raised as to just where he or she stands on the matter.
On the other hand, a wise mediator—I hope that they will all be wise—will know when there seems to be a crack or a hope. It is that kind of position that I have in mind. It is easier to be anecdotal about these matters and I have heard it said that where a person who has run away from his wife and set up with someone else goes to a lawyer and gets a description of what things will be like after a divorce, particularly financially, he starts to wonder whether he wants to go ahead with the divorce; if he is on his own, the chances are good, but if the other party of the illicit arrangement is there, perhaps the chances are not so good.

929
Those are just aspects of human nature. That is the sort of opportunity that a skilled mediator would seize to say, "Yes, it is true; it will be bad. Why not think about what you have already? Wouldn't it be better to try again? Your wife is willing to have you back, to forgive you for what has happened and to start again. Wouldn't that be right?" These are quite delicate matters. I believe that they are best covered in a code of conduct that brings them to the attention of mediators but, ultimately, leaves them as matters for professional judgment.
Amendment No. 54 was mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. It is supported by my noble friend Lady Young and the noble Lord, Lord Jakobovits. The principle behind it is very much the same as the principle behind subsections (5) and (6); namely, that if the couple can get together again, the clock should stop. There are problems about what "living together" means in this context. As we know, the law has developed to allow people to be separate even when they live under the same roof. So some clarification may be required in that connection. But the principle behind the amendment is the same principle behind what I sought to provide. If the parties are attempting to make a go of it together, then that should be intimated to the court and the clock should be stopped until that attempt has been thoroughly tried out.
Amendment No. 55 is a consequence of Amendment No. 40. Amendment No. 56 suggests that "is to be disregarded" should be replaced by "shall not count": As I said, I shall take advice about that.
I have tried to be practical about the period suggested in Amendments Nos. 58 and 60. We do not want at all to discourage reconciliation, but we do not want to use an original statement for too long. The original statement that initiates the procedure should not be allowed to function for too long. That is why I believe that we should give a reasonable time to encourage reconciliation but not allow the original statement to continue to be effective as a start to this matter for too long. I thought that 18 months was about right. To make the period as short as 12 months very much constrains the possible attempt at reconciliation. I shall certainly take advice on the drafting and look again at that matter.
With regard to encouraging mediators to keep reconciliation in mind, I feel that the best place to deal with that will be during consideration of the amendments about a code of conduct for mediators or something of that kind, to which we shall come later. I believe that the principles behind what we are discussing at this stage are reasonably clear and agreed among those who have spoken.
4.45 p.m.
Baroness Elles: Before the noble and learned Lord sits down, I wonder whether he will take into account a question which I adumbrated yesterday, concerning notification of the statement to the other party. At the moment the year starts from the day that the statement is made before the court. Clearly, there could be quite considerable delay in the notice reaching the other party.
930
That would mean that it might be considerably less than 12 months if that party happened to be away, disabled or in an accident. My noble and learned friend will know the kinds of situation which could arise. I wonder whether some discretion could be taken into account in allowing the time to run over the year, if there is a certain reason for doing so.
The Lord Chancellor: Certainly I should wish to bear that in mind when considering the regulations to make. Obviously, it is desirable that such a notice should be served as soon as possible, but there could be circumstances in which that is not possible for a number of reasons. Certainly, I should want to take those into account. I shall certainly have in mind for the regulations the point made by my noble friend and, if clarification is required, for the Bill itself. I shall need to consider that point.
The Earl of Onslow: I am sorry to have to ask the noble and learned Lord again to address his mind to this point. If there is a situation in which the clock is stopped and the reconciliation does not work, then by extending the period, I suggest, it has been made more likely, in an obtuse way, that the divorce cannot be achieved as early as would possibly be in everyone's interest. A failed reconciliation is probably more likely to end in greater bitterness than even a non-reconciliation scenario.
The noble and learned Lord referred to 15 months with three months out and an extension of three months at the end. If, in that three months, the reconciliation fails and one's old friends Mr. and Mrs. Bloggins are at each other's throats even more than they were before, it seems rather silly to extend the period by another three months. Am I perhaps being difficult?
The Lord Chancellor: No, certainly not. No Member of the Committee is being difficult. It is a matter of balance. There are all kinds of circumstances. Trying to legislate for human nature with great precision is difficult. The point is that both parties have to agree to stop the clock. That is the crux of the matter. There can be attempts at reconciliation, as the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, supposed to be meant—I certainly do mean that—without the parties agreeing to stop the clock. But if the parties agree to stop the clock, I feel that there is a reasonable prospect of the reconciliation proceeding. I want to avoid the notion that by going into a genuine period of reconciliation, where both parties are agreed to have a good go at it, the party who has served the notice will feel that he has to start all over again. What we need to encourage is that people should try to get together and stop that period running.
The other side of the matter is that the purpose of the period is to demonstrate that the marriage has irretrievably broken down. It seems to me to be perfectly satisfactory that a period during which the parties agree that they are making an attempt at reconciliation which has reasonable prospects should not count to proof of that. If the attempt breaks down, I accept that there may be additional bitterness. It is one of the risks. I hope that the risk is well worth running in most cases. But if the attempt breaks down, there is a further cooling-off

931
period. In fact, it may he all the more important to have a further cooling-off period, if there has been a certain rush of blood to the head as the reconciliation attempt broke down. The importance of a further cooling-off period may be even greater because cooling off is, perhaps, the best remedy that we can devise for sudden rancour.
Lord Stallard: Before the noble and learned Lord sits down, may I thank him for his long statement and explanation. However, there is a little doubt left in my mind. This matter has been argued from both sides and all round. It has been like going around in a circle. I am particularly pleased that we are beginning to reach some decision about the difference between mediation and reconciliation. We are not quite there yet but we are getting there.
I should like to direct the Committee's attention to the parliamentary brief from the Law Society, which is quite specific about the role of the mediator. A mediator does not provide marriage guidance counselling; a mediator will not offer legal advice; a mediator does not comment on whether an agreed solution is fair to both parties and properly protects their interests; and a mediator does not advise the parties independently. That is not exactly in line with what the noble and learned Lord said; but that is from the Law Society. I am not a member of the Law Society, but it seems sensible to me.
I am a little disturbed that we have indicated a definite "must" for mediation. If one party says the marriage is over, then they must go to mediation. However, we have not been so definite in regard to reconciliation, apart from in Amendment No. 35B where the noble Baroness, Lady Young, tabled something more definite. In that amendment a period is laid down for reconciliation in the same way as a period is laid down in the Bill for mediation.
The noble and learned Lord seems to be saying, "If the parties agree"; "If this"; "If that". There are too many "ifs" in relation to reconciliation. I should like that to be strengthened and for the Bill to be specific about the need for reconciliation before we go into the role of the mediator as laid down in the Law Society brief.
The Lord Chancellor: The noble Lord is speaking to an amendment that was discussed yesterday. Perhaps I have been too long in my explanations. That is the last thing I want to be; I want to make progress and I am trying to answer the questions posed.
In relation to the noble Lord's point, no period for mediation is stated in the Bill; the period is for "reflection and consideration". As I read out, the first branch is to reflect on whether the marriage can be saved. The period is for reflection and consideration and its first purpose is for reflection on whether the marriage can be saved.
I do not specify a period for mediation because it is possible that there will not be any mediation. If neither party wants it, as I said yesterday, we cannot enforce it. The Bill is drafted to permit a period of mediation, but it is not drafted as a period for mediation in the way that the noble Lord said. Most Members of the Committee
932
distinguish between mediation on the one hand and reconciliation on the other, and marriage guidance is more appropriate to the second than to the first.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: I understand the noble and learned Lord to have given me a clear assurance that where there is an attempt at reconciliation not the subject of a notice to the court it will take place concurrently with the year for reflection and consideration. Therefore, if the attempt fails, an application for divorce may be made and the attempt will not operate as any kind of disincentive against attempting reconciliation.
Speaking for myself and being a firm believer in the proposition that Bills should be written in plain English and be readily comprehensible by those whose lives they affect, I invite the noble and learned Lord to consider this. Would it make for a clearer and more comprehensible Bill for all those affected if it were made plain that attempts at reconciliation not notified to the court can be attempted by the parties without prejudice to any of their rights under the Act? The noble and learned Lord may express that notion in whatever way he thinks right.
I note that the noble and learned Lord is of the view that a duty on the mediator to inform the parties that the option of reconciliation remains available is more appropriate to a code of practice than on the face of the Bill. But I invite him also to consider whether that is correct. To impose such a duty on the mediator would signal clearly the value Parliament attaches to encouraging reconciliation. To include it on the face of the Bill would accord with many of the sentiments expressed from a number of quarters in your Lordships' Chamber in regard to attempting reconciliation. However, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Young Baroness Young moved Amendment No. 41:
Page 4, line 15, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
("(3) Where an application for a divorce order under section 2 has been made by both parties to a marriage, the period for reflection and consideration is two years, beginning with the day on which the statement is received by the court.
(3A) Where an application for a divorce order under section 2 has been made by one of the parties to a marriage, the period for reflection and consideration is five years beginning with the day on which the statement is received by the court.").
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 41, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 43 and 44. This is a completely different issue from the one we have just debated, but it is one about which great concern has been expressed at all stages of our discussions and from all parts of the Chamber. It relates to the period of one year for, as my noble and learned friend explained, "reflection and consideration". It is at the end of that year that a divorce can be granted and it may be granted against the wishes of one unwilling spouse. It is a short period of time. Furthermore, no reason needs to be given except the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage.
Many of us feel that that is exactly what sends the wrong message to everybody about the Bill. My amendment is designed to extend that period. It will be

933
readily apparent on Amendment No. 41 that the period for reflection and consideration is extended to two years where both parties consent to divorce or five years where only one party seeks a divorce. That is what happens in the present law and I do not fully understand why we cannot stay with that even if we include the other provisions in the Bill.
Amendment No. 43 extends the one year to two years and Amendment No. 44, to which the noble Earl, Lord Perth, attaches his name, extends it to 18 months. I am conscious that these are three variations on the same point. I tabled them purposely because I want to use the Committee stage as a time for considering how the Bill may best be amended. I hope that my noble and learned friend will be able to do something to extend the time period, which many people—far more expert than I am—consider to be too short, particularly in the case of the unwilling spouse.
I am sure that others taking part will have been deluged, as I have, with correspondence. That situation is particularly tragic for older women who, I regret to say, are frequently "traded in" for a new and younger model, which is no longer regarded as a fault—I do not agree with that but that is what we are told.
Many people will argue (and I have heard it argued in Committee) that once everybody has made up their minds to go ahead, it is terrible to keep people waiting for longer than one year. But curiously, when one looks at the statistics, it is clear that in Scotland, where over 50 per cent. of divorces take between two and five, years—and in Northern Ireland over 70 per cent. take that time—there has been no public outcry. It seems to work perfectly satisfactorily. I do not understand therefore why it is thought that there may be a public outcry in England and Wales.
The reason why the statistics in Northern Ireland are so different is that the special procedure does not apply. As we know, the special procedure was introduced in 1973 as a statutory instrument and was not a decision by Parliament in quite the same sense. I believe that this is a matter which is very much at the heart of this Bill and which a great many people believe is quite wrong; namely, that at the end of a year it should be possible for one spouse to divorce the other against the wishes of the partner and in such a short period of time. Although I am quite happy to agree that none of these amendments may be correctly drafted or precisely meets what my noble and learned friend believes to be right, I hope that he will accept them in principle and will be able to come forward at Report stage with an amendment of his own. That would immensely strengthen the Bill and help those of us who are deeply unhappy about the provision.
I did not intervene in the last debate because I had already spoken on the subject of reconciliation, which is so important. The faith that one is going to pin on the mediator! He is this all-wise man or woman who will divide up the assets, deal with the acrimony and who will know the very moment at which to say to the couples, "You should seek reconciliation". Some of them are going to be splendid people, but life is not going to produce perfect mediators from one end of the
934
country to the other. Life is not like that. If we are basing this legislation on that assumption, we are deluding ourselves as to what is going to happen. When we come to debate mediation, I shall raise more points on it.
The danger in this Bill is that we are giving many arguments to people who are divorcing and who know the damage it is causing, particularly to their children, quite apart from anything else, in order to make them feel a little more comfortable about divorcing by having all these different processes to go through. Of course, it is desirable if, in these unhappy circumstances, one can do all these things without acrimony. But in my experience of life people on the point of divorce feel acrimony towards one another most of the time and we cannot legislate to abolish that whatever else we may or may not be doing. But what we can do somehow, in the course of balancing the provisions within the Bill, is to help particularly the spouse who is being divorced against his or her wishes. I beg to move.
5 p.m.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: I take the view that in their proposals,Looking to the future, the Government get the balance on this subject right. Paragraph 4.12 states,
"A period of twelve months will provide sufficient time to establish that the breakdown of the marriage is irretrievable, and for couples who make acceptable arrangements for living apart".
Then in paragraph 4.13 the proposals address the very point which the noble Baroness, Lady Young, addresses through these amendments. It says,
"A shorter period will do neither of these, and a divorce could be granted without any adequate reflection and consideration. A longer period would offer no incentive for couples to deal with the past. Not only would it increase distress but 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".
That I believed at the time, and still believe, represents sound judgment. What must be explored in the debate on this amendment is the purpose of the longer periods proposed because it is incumbent on the mover of the amendment to put his or her cards clearly on the table. I have to ask this: are these amendments put forward on the basis that divorce should be made more difficult to get and that people should be kept out of a divorce for longer as a matter of principle or, on the contrary, are they put forward on the basis that if both parties want divorce then they really need two years and one is not sufficient for reflection and consideration but if only one person wants a divorce, against the wishes of the other, then he or she actually requires five years for reflection and consideration?
The contrast between the periods proposed—two years for both parties, but five years for a single party seeking to divorce against the wishes of the other—suggests to me that the intention lying behind these amendments may be somewhat penal in nature and not that these longer periods are truly required for the statutory purpose, which is a sufficient period for

935
reflection and consideration. Because I cannot discern a sufficient purpose for these proposed longer periods, I oppose the amendments.
Baroness Faithfull: Perhaps I may make just one comment. The period of one year has started long before the couple go to court. They have spent a long time coming to the conclusion that they will go to court. Perhaps they have spent a long time going to one of the organisations which deals with reconciliation. So in effect divorce has been considered for one, two or three years before they go to court. With regret, I disagree with my noble friend Lady Young. I believe that the period of one year is the end because there have been many times before when the matters have been considered. To have the period very much longer will be very damaging to the children.
Baroness Elles: On this occasion I regret that I do not agree with my noble friend Lady Faithfull. She has been talking about the situation where there has been acrimony in the family for some time and a decision has been made that they want to break up. I quite understand that there are such situations; but there are others as well and that is the difficulty of this Bill. One is dealing with human nature because, as in Anna Karenina, happy families are happy for all the same reasons, but unhappiness is different in every family. That has to be taken into account. Perhaps I may give another example. People may have been happily married until they are 40, 50 or 55 years of age. My noble friend Lady Young' touched on the subject of a man who goes off and has an affair. It could equally well be a woman, but in this case, as I happen to be a woman, I shall give an example of a man. That may happen within 24 hours and it may not be something that has gone on for three or four years. The affair might have taken place within a month or a week, or whatever. The man goes off with another woman. The shorter the time in which he can obtain a divorce and marry the other woman, the more power that other woman has on the man. Now that one no longer accepts that adultery is a fault and is not a ground for divorce, any woman—and she may be 40 or 45 years of age and not married—may say, "I am going to hang on to this chap because in a year he will get a divorce". The wife left at home does not have to consent. The man merely has to go to court and put in a statement saying that the marriage has broken down and that is it.
The more we realise that there are such situations, the better. I do not say that it is the only situation, but it is something which must be taken into account when discussing these issues. One has a situation where a person has been married for 20 or 30 years, has given up a career to look after the family, and has been happily married, as far as they knew, until perhaps last week or last month. So often one hears grandchildren discussing such matters and saying, "He is going through the male menopause"—I apologise for using that phrase. But so often one hears that as a comment from the grandchildren and the young on the father who has gone off with someone else. We must recognise that that is a genuine situation.
936
Therefore, I wonder about the wisdom of having a specified term of one year in all circumstances. I know that what I am saying is not in accordance with the way in which the Bill is now drafted, but I very much hope that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor will take the situations that I have described into account because they are now much more prevalent than used to be the case. Very often in the past a man who had had an affair would return to his family. That was often because of the stigma of divorce and because of a recognition of the value of the family. Regrettably, however, that is no longer what happens in today's climate. We have to recognise what happens when a woman is left at home, having sacrificed her career and with very little income. We shall come to the issue of pensions later. The current provisions will leave such a woman without the ability to make any decision about her future. That is why I very much support my noble friend Lady Young. I am not sure that 18 months is the correct period because I do not think that it is possible to specify any definite period which can meet each individual situation. That is the problem that I face with this Bill.
Lord Marsh: I know that noble Lords, like, I am sure, many other people, rightly have a high opinion of the knowledge and wisdom that is resident in this Chamber, but I think that we could overdo that in relation to the rest of the human race. I am sure that there are occasions when someone who has been happily married for 20 or 30 years meets an attractive young lady across a bar one night and breaks up the marriage in 24 hours, but that is no more common among the generality of the population than it would be in this House. Indeed, to suggest that either House of Parliament should take totally unto itself the possession of ultimate wisdom in relation to human relationships does not carry a great deal of weight. Those things happen, but they are not the normality. Most ordinary, half-intelligent people (on a par with many of us, including myself) recognise very rapidly at the lowest level the sheer horrendous nature of the economic consequences of such a break-up. Most of those people are moved by their children crying and getting upset, as most of us would be moved in such circumstances.
I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Faith full. I find it extraordinary that it is suggested that after the collapse of a formerly loving relationship a year is too short a period in which to have thought about it, weighed up the consequences and realised what the break-up means for everybody concerned. If that is so, frankly I can see no reason why the parties should suddenly begin to understand all that simply because they are in the second year of that period.
Of course the situation of the abandoned spouse is tragic. It is not always the woman who is abandoned; it sometimes happens to the man. And of course, specifying one year, two years or five years is irrelevant because that spouse does not want a divorce.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, who said that it is possible that the intention behind the amendment is simply to make divorce less likely, regardless of the circumstances. I do not think that that

937
is merely "possible"; I think that it is the sole purpose of the amendment. The amendment is not logical otherwise. It is perfectly understandable that those who believe that divorce is wrong and should not happen want to stop it. I have no quarrel with that. However, there is another point of view—that to prolong something as intimate as a marriage and something which is so important as a foundation for a group of children past the point when it is clear that it is a vulgar and unpleasant charade, does no good to anyone. That is a difficult judgment to make, but I believe that the Lord Chancellor has got it right.
Lord Acton: I harken to the wisdom of the noble Baroness, Lady Faithful!, and agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, has just said. I believe that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has got it right and that one year is the correct period.
5.15 p.m.
Baroness Platt of Writtle: I should like to express my sympathy with the position of an abandoned spouse—often, as has been said, an older woman, but it could be a man—who does not agree that the marriage has irretrievably broken down. After all, that party has as many rights in the marriage as the man or woman who has run away, but that point seems to have been forgotten. Like my noble friend Lady Young, I cannot see why it is proposed that the law should be changed. Therefore, I particularly support subsection (3A) of her. amendment and hope that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor will reconsider the matter, bearing in mind that only one party to the marriage may think that it has irretrievably broken down.
The Lord Bishop of Oxford: I listened with great attention to the noble Baronesses, Lady Young and Lady Elles, because I know that they expressed the concerns of the many people outside this Committee who regard the amendment as crucial. However, I must ask myself what purpose would be achieved by extending the period. Would that somehow improve the chances of saving that particular marriage? Is the marriage more likely to be saved over a two-year period for reflection and consideration than over a one-year period? Sadly, I am not convinced that the extra year would reasonably strengthen the chances of saving a marriage. If the period was increased, would it act as a significant deterrent to those whose marriages are breaking up? Again, sadly, I believe that those who arc set on breaking up their marriage will live apart or will live totally separate lives, and that increasing the period will not act as any significant disincentive to a separation. In a way, I wish that it would.
If, by increasing the period, we could significantly reduce the number of divorces, there might be a lot to he said for it, but I do not honestly think that that would act as any kind of disincentive or sanction. I shall not mention the disadvantages of increasing the period because the noble Lord. Lord Irvine of Lairg, has already spelt them out and I have nothing to add to what he said.
938.
As I have said, I have listened to this debate with great attention and shall continue to listen to see whether any significant purpose may be achieved by increasing the period. However, at the moment, I have to say—albeit reluctantly—that I can see no significant advantage in that.
Lord Stallard: I rise to support the noble Baroness, Lady Young, in this amendment. She is right that this is the time and the place in which to air all the views on this matter so that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor can take them away and discuss all the points that have been raised.
I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Young—the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, was also right—that we are not attempting to reduce the period; we are simply seeking to leave it as it is. As the right reverend Prelate said, there is no clamour for this change from people outside this Committee. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Young, I have received correspondence on this and there is certainly no clamour from people outside for making divorce easier. I accept that there is no clamour for making it harder, but there is a tendency in this Bill, and sometimes in some of the speeches that we have heard, to undermine the basis of marriage and to undermine marriage as a sacrament and way of life while promoting divorce as a better alternative as soon as any trouble arises. That is what is upsetting many people outside and that is what vexes me. That point of view must be considered seriously.
We should not simply say that the provisions should state one year because that is what we think, because thousands of people out there do not agree with that and their views must be considered. They have to be represented by someone and I am happy to help to represent those people who do not want divorce to be made easier at the expense of everything about marriage in which they have always believed. This Committee should at least consider seriously whether the provisions are best left as they are with periods of two and five years, or whether divorce should be available at the whim of only one of the parties who might say that the period should be 12 months. Is not that an incentive to increase the number of divorces?
I am still not convinced. My problem is that I believe basically that rather than assist the situation the Bill makes divorce easier. I am trying to overcome that, but I am having great difficulty in coming to terms with the fact that the Bill makes divorce too easy and is an incentive for people not to try to make the marriage work when there are difficulties but to take the easy way out. I know that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will listen to all the points made in the debate. I hope that he will come back with something that tries to meet the fears and worries of those who agree with the amendment.
Lord Elton: I find this the most difficult area of the whole Bill. I am much attracted by what the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, said, although I would not have put it so forcefully. I see the persuasion of the remarks of the right reverend Prelate, but it cannot necessarily be right to treat marriages in which there are two parties who

939
wish the marriage to end, and marriages where there is only one party who wishes it to end in the same way. I hope that my noble and learned friend will be able to point out the differences in what is in the Bill. If they are to be treated differently, then the question is: what is the purpose of treating them differently? Is it a penalty or is it a means of exploiting a different situation?
The noble Lord, Lord Marsh, suggested that the proposal was purely punitive, and, I think rightly, felt that many people support the amendment because they feel that the whole venture of divorce should be stopped at any price. I cannot number myself among them. However, a period of reflection may have a greater chance of producing positive fruit where one of the parties starts out thinking that there may be a chance of saving the marriage than it would when both parties are determined that the marriage should end. I hope that my noble and learned friend will address himself to that point, because that is the little place where, so far as concerns me, the door is ajar for the amendment which otherwise I would not be able to support.
Lord Monson: Before the noble Lord sits down, does he agree that Amendment No. 42 and the consequential amendments in the name of his noble friend Lord Coleraine address the problem that he poses, and in my view do so in a rather satisfactory way?
Lord Elton: I was slavishly following the grouping by not mentioning that that had occurred to me. My noble friend may yet put his toe into the waters of this debate.
Baroness Lockwood: I understand the motives behind the amendments, and I sympathise with those motives to a great extent. If one party is opposed to the divorce then obviously the situation is difficult. In those circumstances, as the noble Baroness, Lady Platt, said, in the majority of cases it is likely to be the woman who is the party offended against. In such cases, particularly with older women, real financial problems arise, because older women tend not to be as financially independent as younger women.
There are some serious problems to be tackled, but I am not convinced that the proposed amendments are the answers to the problems. The first amendment, for example, envisages a period of five years when one party is opposed to the divorce. Perhaps I may remind the noble Baroness that she said that we must take account of the fact that there is often a great deal of bitterness in divorce. If there is to be five years of bitterness, what kind of life would there be for either of the parties? What kind of life would the family have? Like the right reverend Prelate, I feel that extending the time period laid down in the Bill is not the solution.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor advised us yesterday that one year is the minimum period, and that it can he extended where mediation or reconciliation is taking place. The matter does not necessarily have to be settled within a year. I would ask the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to elaborate on the effect Clause 10 would have in those circumstances. Clause 10 relates to orders preventing divorce in cases of hardship. As I read the clause, a
940
divorce could he prevented if adequate arrangements had not been made. That would give the spouse being divorced against his or her will an opportunity to ensure that his or her financial well being was taken care of.
There is another amendment to which we shall come later which relates to the division of pensions in a divorce. Financial considerations will be terribly important in a divorce. So while I sympathise with the motives behind the amendments, I am opposed to them because I do not believe that they would prevent a divorce but that they would create greater unhappiness for longer.
The Earl of Perth: My name, together with that of the noble Baroness, Lady Young, is down to Amendment No. 44, which is grouped with Amendment No. 41. I have listened to the debate with great interest. My amendment mentions 18 months. If I had seen two years mentioned I might have put my name to that amendment as well.
The real issue emerged in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Irvine, when he asked whether I supported the amendment because it had some sort of penal effect. The amendment would make divorce more difficult. I do not think of the amendment as a penal one, and I suspect that goes for the noble Baroness, Lady Young, as well. The amendment does two things, and that is important. First, it makes a couple contemplating marriage think about it more seriously. We have all seen the disastrous effects of divorce over the past years. I believe that the previous divorce Bill made divorce too easy. I hope the proposal will have the effect of making the couple contemplating marriage—this is the key—take it more seriously.
Secondly—here I find the remarks of the right reverend Prelate most disturbing—I believe that where there is a longer period the breakdown may be less likely, although I am aware that it must be a matter of opinion. With the longer period the couple will say that they have to try to make a go of it because they have another year, 18 months, or whatever it may be, to go. The longer period may have two consequences. First, it may make those contemplating marriage take it more seriously. Secondly, if the marriage goes wrong, a reconciliation is more likely.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: I have three concerns that I wish to share with the Committee and they arise out of much of what has been discussed. My first concern is that under the Bill the procedure differs in a material respect, procedurally, from what happens now. Under the Bill, divorce proceedings commence with a bare statement upon which no advice is required. At present, when a person is contemplating a divorce he or she goes to a solicitor who, if he honours the ethics of his profession as I hope the majority of my colleagues do, makes it his first task to ask, "Why do you want a divorce? What are your grounds? Do you realise what you are up against?". When one is advising a woman in particular one asks, "Do you realise the loneliness of it all, quite apart from the financial aspects? Do you realise what is happening to the children if you go ahead with this?". I can tell the

941
Committee that in a number of cases throughout a very lengthy life I have had the joy of seeing my client going out having changed his or her mind. That is not a possibility under the present procedure.
My second point is relevant to the amendment that we are discussing. The advice that would normally be given under this altered procedure is this. If the length of time is two years in respect of a "consent divorce" or five years where one of the parties does not consent the advice that anyone would give—and one does not have to be a lawyer to do it—is, "If you have the slightest doubt about filing that statement for heaven's sake put it in because there will be a long delay of two years or five years if you do not. Don't think too hastily but nevertheless buck up with your ideas and put that statement in". I do not believe that that is what we want.
I turn to an issue that worries all Members of the Committee; those who have spoken for the amendment and those who have spoken against it. It is the plight of the party to the marriage who wants it to go on. We have a procedure under the Bill and I wonder with Members of the Committee whether we can improve upon it. It is the procedure under Clause 10. I know that I shall be forgiven if I jump from one clause to another. Clause 10 provides:
"If an application for a divorce order has been made by one of the parties to a marriage, the court may, on the application of the other party, order that the marriage is not to be dissolved".
Subsection (2) provides that:
"Such an order...may be made only if the court is satisfied"—
and I look at paragraph (b)—
"that it would be wrong, in all the circumstances (including the conduct of the parties), for the marriage to be dissolved".
Will the noble and learned Lord in his ingenuity—and most of us credit him with that in addition to other qualities—reflect upon the procedure under Clause 10 when dealing with the problem that we are now meeting? Taking the partner concerned to be the wife, can he see whether at an early stage under some informal procedure she can say, "Please, court, I do not want this divorce. He has been carried away by this little floozie"—the Committee will forgive me using that word—"and she is young, she is pretty, and it is all a nonsense. He is a silly idiot. He is trying to pretend that he is 30 again but he's really 50 and he had better realise it."? Is there a way in which, informally, somehow or another, the matter can go before an intelligent registrar, judge, or whoever, at an early stage so that the party who does not want the divorce can be heard? The wise registrar, whoever he may be, will then have the ability to talk to the husband and say to him, "I have listened. Is it sensible? Do you really want to go ahead? You know that if I believe there is a hardship under Clause 10 I have the power not to give you a divorce order. Can't both of you go to see a marriage counsellor?".
What worries me about the Bill—and there is so much that I agree with—is that it looks like a cold, set procedure. I know all about mediation and that people rightly say that mediation is not conciliation. I am really fearful that under the procedure we have at the moment
942
little people will be thrown into a pit when, if we thought out our family procedure relying on Clause 10 and making it more simple and humble, we could rescue them from the pit.
Lord Wolfson: I wish to—
Lord Carr of Hadley: I am a strong supporter of the principle of the Bill but I have one nasty niggle in my mind about it. It relates to the issue that has been touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. Perhaps I may say to my noble friend Lord Wolfson that if I stood up firmly and did not sit down to let him speak first it was because on this point I wish to make what will be my only contribution to the debate.
If, like the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, I believed that the Bill made divorce easier I should oppose it. I do not believe that, first and foremost because it gets rid of that wretched thing the quickie divorce. In my view, one of the reasons why the quickie divorce was used so much was that the period of the other alternatives was so long. One of my reasons for supporting the Bill is that it gets rid of the quickie divorce.
I turn to the second reason and I speak not as a lawyer and, luckily, with no experience of dealing with divorce in my family, either close or distant. It seems to me that for the first time in our history we are seeking to put on the statute book a process which must be gone through before divorce can be obtained; which is designed to question whether the divorce is necessary by conciliation; and, if that fails, at least to ensure that before the point of divorce is reached the parties have made arrangements as to how to provide for themselves and, above all, for their young children. That seems to be a strong, positive case for the Bill.
My noble friend Lord Elton said that the provisions of Amendment No. 41 go to the heart of the matter. I want a period that is long enough to ensure that the processes of conciliation and mediation can be pursued to their utmost useful extent. Therefore, the period must be long enough. It is also my experience of life generally that too long a period takes away the urgency rather than adding to the urgency with which one goes about these matters. One cannot work out mathematically or logically any reasonable period. I cannot justify 12 months rather than six or 18 months. However, I have a feeling in my bones that 12 months is about the right period. It is long enough to do everything you have to do but it is not too long to make one say, "I am not going to be bothered with it" or "It is going to take so long that I have not the will or the energy to pursue it".
It is a matter of subjective judgment but I believe that 12 months is about the right time, provided we arc sure that the machinery and the resources for conciliation and mediation are in place before the Act comes into operation. I was heartened by what my noble and learned friend said yesterday, that he was not in any hurry to bring the Bill into action so as to make sure that all the proper framework is there first. That being so, I believe that 12 months is right and I have to say with sorrow to my noble friend Lady Young—I think this is the first time over many issues that I have found

943
myself not agreeing with her—that I cannot agree with her on this point. I really believe that 12 months is the right time, with the provisos that I have made.
I do not want to sit down without drawing attention to the fact that my noble friend's amendment raises another issue. When dealing with a divorce on which both parties are going forward, the situation is different from a divorce where only one party wishes it and the other does not. I believe that situation requires a different period or, if not that, some different procedure. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, made his suggestion and, as a non-lawyer, I cannot really give an opinion about it, but I do want to add my urging to those of others to my noble and learned friend, that somewhere in this Bill we must take up the problem of the divorce when one party is asking for it and the other partner is not. I do not think the two cases can be or should be treated exactly the same.
Baroness Seear: I should like very strongly to support what the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has said. I am a very strong supporter of this Bill, apart from one reservation about the situation where one party, who is usually an older woman and who has probably been married to the man for a great many years, wishes to resist a divorce. That is a different situation from the others and it requires very careful consideration.
In Clause 10 there is surely the possibility of dealing more satisfactorily with this situation. If the divorce is stopped, in Clause 10, to meet the wishes of the partner who does not wish to divorce and if, after a period, it, still is not working, it is very likely—not certain but likely—that the unwilling partner will come to the conclusion that there is no future in it. However, a longer time will have been given for them to work at it and the case will have been given a really fair trial. One knows that this happens. Very often, as has been said, men will fancy a younger woman for a period of time maybe. Then that passes and the man will come back to the woman to whom he has been married for a long time.
If you can use Clause 10, as the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has said, to give greater protection to the older woman in those circumstances who is resisting divorce, at least it will give her the chance of a fairer deal and it might lead to a decision not to divorce in the end, when the excitement of his second youth has passed and he returns to the woman he has been used to for all those years.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Wolfson: I too share the view that one year is enough and therefore I support my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor and other speakers. Most of what is necessary has been said but I should like to make one or two points. First, obviously the circumstances leading to divorce are not always the same. This fact should be taken into account. You cannot have a blanket rule for such an emotional and sad issue. I think the length of marriage should be taken into account. In my own case I was married for 41 years before it was ended, and it was a sad thing to happen. Also, age is relevant. was in my sixties at the time and had the opportunity—
944
I believe this is a very important point in respect of resettlement—to resettle with a very delightful lady who had been a widow for six years and had children of her own. If I had had to wait for five years it would have been impossible for her and would have landed me in a situation where I would have been really too old to remarry sensibly. All the children in this particular case were married, and I believe that is another issue which also has to be taken into account.
I saw a film, as no doubt many of your Lordships have, called The War of the Roses, where the stresses and strains in a marriage ended up in the most horrific manner, with the participants either killing each other or committing suicide in a home which they could not share together properly. I think it is advisable to take account of all the views expressed here. One year seems to me to be right. There should be some allowance made for length of marriage, age, opportunities for resettlement and the fact of not having dependent children.
The Earl of Onslow: There is one more point which needs to be alluded to and that is this. Sometimes there have been cases of a marriage having broken down and one partner who, under the present law, could appear to be the innocent party has moral objections to divorce and will do nothing whatever to consent to it. However, for the sake of argument, let us assume that we all know of cases like this. The wife bends the husband's ear something rotten and finally he goes away; or he bends her ear and she goes away and he says, "I am not going to let you have a divorce". I may say that my religious beliefs do not allow me to do that. It seems to me that we should not always assume that the person who will not allow the divorce is being reasonable. I do not know whether that fact has been brought to your Lordships' attention but it happens in human affairs.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: We started this afternoon by talking about the children. To me the children are always paramount, and we have not mentioned them in discussing these amendments. I think that the longer the parents are unhappily together with children, and the children have to see it, the worse it is for the children as they grow up. Therefore, I would go along with my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor and have the one year, because of the children.
Lord Meston: As the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, said, it is not possible to generalise; but I tend to the view that parties for the most part begin the divorce process towards the end of a marriage which has been in trouble for some time. Your Lordships may take the view that in some cases one year is too short, but one thing I am clear about is that five years is too long. Under the existing law, surprisingly, divorces after a five-year separation are quite often those in which more acrimony and unhappiness are generated than in almost any other type of case. One party will not consent to the divorce and cannot or will not use grounds which may be available for some other form of divorce.
That is the point which the noble. Earl has just mentioned. Neither party can get on and reorganise the rest of their lives, and the longer the period—it is

945
inescapable—the greater the resentment, often to the detriment of the children and indeed of the grandchildren. If one is thinking in terms of punishment, I suggest that there are many cases where a five-year separation before divorce can be finalised punishes both parties and their families.
I ventured to mention on Second Reading one of the unhappiest divorce cases in which I have ever been involved. In fact, it was the wife who wanted to end the marriage. She had decided to go off after a very long marriage, but the husband would not divorce her. Rather stubbornly, he wanted to hold on to the marriage which had lasted for over 40 years. In the end, the wife brought a petition on the grounds that the parties had been apart for five years. However, the husband denied that they had been apart for that time. He said that it was a lesser period when the divorce petition was filed with the court. There then followed what was one of the most unhappy days that I have ever spent in a divorce court.
The bitterness and unhappiness of that couple was quite distressing to behold. In the end, the judge accepted the husband's case that they had not been apart for five years. Therefore, the husband did not get what he wanted—namely, his wife back—and the wife did not get what she wanted which was a divorce. They limped on with their future unresolved until eventually five years could be proved to have elapsed to the satisfaction of the court. I have to say that I left the court that day thinking that if only that couple had been seen by a professional mediator or counsellor at a much, earlier stage, they probably would not have reached such a sad situation.
I suggest that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has put his finger on the point. Rather than worrying about the period, we should be looking more constructively at what can be done for both parties either under Clause 10 or, possibly, by giving the court a discretionary power to extend the period beyond a year as is suggested in forthcoming amendments.
Lord Stewartby: When I came to the debate this afternoon, I did not have any clear view as to whether I thought that any of the three amendments ought to be supported. I am still of that point of view. However, I believe that a number of issues have emerged from the debate which are most important as regards the overall balance of the Bill. That is why it is so difficult to look at any one clause, or any one part of it, in isolation from the rest.
If, as my noble friend Lord Can said, 12 months is the right period, we must accept that it is a matter of judgment between conflicting issues. Of course it must be possible in certain cases that a longer period might lead to a greater chance of reconciliation. However, it must equally be possible that a longer period in other cases might lead to greater recrimination and less chance of reconciliation. What we are trying to find instinctively is not a happy medium, but, perhaps, the least unhappy medium which would balance the conflicting issues.
946
My mind is quite unresolved on the matter. I have an instinct that 18 months might be necessary in some cases rather than 12 months. However, I should like to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Irvine—as, indeed, did the noble Earl, Lord Perth—that many of us who have contemplated the question of the length of time do not do so for the purpose of any penal intent, or specifically to make divorce more difficult. Any change in any of the provisions in whatever direction is likely to make divorce more difficult for some people, and will, possibly, make it less difficult for others.
We must try to strike a balance over the whole Bill as we see its other provisions unfold. That is why I believe that the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, regarding Clause 10 is most important. It is not necessarily the only part of the Bill which needs to be seen in conjunction with the clause that we are now discussing; but it is the nexus of procedures and the nexus of provisions which will ultimately determine whether the Bill achieves the improvements which we all hope it will in relation to resolving the problems connected with divorce.
I should like to emphasise and support the comments which were made by several Members of the Committee about the lady on the bar stool mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Marsh. It seems to me that the temptress on the bar stool symbolises one particular area of acute difficulty in the whole matter. I came across one of those characters once.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Stewartby: I should hasten to tell Members of the Committee that she came to a surgery in my former constituency and tried to persuade me to do everything possible to enable her to gain permission to live in this country, so that she could exert her charms on one of my constituents.
One should never take any general issue from one case. But the case is so dramatic that it illustrates my point very emphatically. The man in question had been to the United States to take part in a darts match. On the bar stool afterwards, he had found the temptress—or the temptress had found him. She was unrelenting in her efforts to secure his affections. I cannot remember exactly how much resistance to the situation came from his wife. But eventually the temptress succeeded in her objective: she married my constituent and murdered him three years later.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Stewartby: I do not recount the story in order to obtain such a reaction from Members of the Committee. Indeed, I do so because it made a very profound impression on me. It made me look at the potential implication of temptresses rather more carefully thereafter. Although I have slightly dramatised the story by using such language, I believe that there is a very serious issue to be considered which involves the question of unwilling spouses and, in some cases, such potentially short-term infatuations which may disrupt the marriage but which could easily blow over in a certain period. Whether it is through the proposed

947
clause, the other amendments or by virtue of other parts of the Bill, I believe that that is an area for which it is essential that the Bill should provide appropriate measures.
6 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: I agree with the view that the proposed amendments deal with matters which are at the very heart of the Bill. I believe that it is necessary to have a period for consideration and reflection. That period should be a minimum period and fixed by law, as a clear indication of the value and solemnity that we attach to marriage. However, the question of what that period should be is a difficult one and is a matter of judgment.
The Government set out in the White Paper the reasons which persuaded us that a year was the right period. There is another point to be made in that connection to which the noble Baroness, Lady Lockwood, referred and which bears on the point raised by my noble friend Lord Carr of Hadley. The period is for consideration and reflection. One of the conditions in addition is that there should be a resolution of the matters that arise between the parties consequent upon the divorce. That cannot be allowed to produce a divorce in less than a year. However, if the processes require longer than a year then, automatically, that will happen by virtue of the provisions.
I believe that we have met the point raised by my noble friend Lord Carr of Hadley. We have ensured not only that the period, whatever it may be, is not less than a year—and that is the important effect that I mentioned—but also that there is flexibility to ensure that what is required in the way of dealing with the situation between the parties is available in point of time.
As I said, we have before us a difficult question. It is one which requires judgment; and, indeed, Members of the Committee will be required ultimately to exercise judgment on it. My noble friend Lady Young has proposed various amendments. I do not believe that there is any real problem so far as concerns drafting. When we reach the stage where a definitive conclusion has to be taken on the amendments, it will not be a drafting question; it will be a question of judgment as to what is the right period. The longer the period the more it is necessary to think what the period is intended to do.
There is also the point that the longer the period the more pressure there is for special arrangements to be made for exceptional circumstances. It is extremely important that marriage is recognised as having the consequence of a definite period as a minimum associated with it. I am not very much in favour of extending the period if, as it were, the counter to that is a power in the court to shorten the period in special circumstances. That blurs the message which otherwise a clear minimum period sends.
As is often the case, there are problems in relation to individual cases. The case of the abandoned spouse who resents very much being abandoned has been referred to. Statistics tend to show that the proportion of these
948
cases in the total is rather small, and the idea that they are particularly exemplified by one gender rather than the other is not sound. That can happen both ways; I am sure that infatuation is not entirely a male preserve.
I agree that this is a serious problem which we need to consider. If the arrangement is to have extended periods related to particular cases, then Clause 10 is the way to deal with that. It is not right to impose as a minimum period a period that deals with exceptional cases only. That is imposing on others an unnecessary wait. I agree with my noble friend Lord Carr of Hadley that the effectiveness and purpose of the period would be damaged if it is too long for any reasonable utility and for the purpose for which it is set up. So far as that is concerned, this Bill makes a reasonable provision.
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, had concerns, which I will now address. Not all of them were precisely raised by this amendment but, nevertheless, they are important and have to be addressed.
The procedure in this Bill requires an information session at the outset in which parties contemplating this step, before they get into anything at all connected with the court, are given as much information as possible, in as effective a way as possible, about the various services available to them. This would include a solicitor if a party wants a solicitor, although it may he a party would prefer, or think it wiser, to go to a marriage guidance counsellor or someone with more specific skills that the party may require. Occasionally problems of illness arise and specialist advice may be required.
A party may be fortunate enough to receive wise advice—I hope that will be the case, at least on occasion—and that I very much want to encourage. The whole idea of the information session preceding any step at all is that people are given full opportunity and advice to think before they get into any process. If they do get into a process, the purpose is as I have said.
The third point is the plight of the party who wants the marriage to go on, and the noble Lord directed our attention to the possibility of using Clause 10 as the ultimate way of dealing with special cases. I feel sure that that is right.
The precise procedure that would be involved in seeking to invoke Clause 10 is not laid down in detail. The procedures would be subject to laying down details in regulations and in rules of court, with a degree of flexibility to take account of what actually happens; but that is the area in which special cases should be dealt with.
One or two of your Lordships referred to the distinction between consent and no consent. I personally believe that consent or no consent is not as relevant to this situation as at first sight appears. Of course, if there is consent there would be no question of seeking to invoke Clause 10 or the hardship bar. The distinction between the two cases is preserved by the fact that a person who does not consent will have the opportunity of recourse to the hardship bar.
It would not be right to distinguish between consent and no consent cases for showing that the marriage has irretrievably broken down. In that case the minimum period should apply whether or not the parties are

949
anxious to divorce because, apart from anything else, it is right that before the divorce is granted they should consider what arrangements should be made.
One has to remember also the children. I want to guard against a situation in which two rather selfish parents are so concerned to safeguard what they see as their definite futures apart—and therefore want to get a divorce as quickly as possible—that they neglect the responsibilities they have already incurred in their union in which children have been born. As I said, it is not right to distinguish in the minimum period on that account. But I do see, and agree, that where parties have not agreed the option of applying under Clause 10 should be considered.
I agree that that is one of the most important parts of the Bill. What I have in mind is that if this matter is to be taken forward, as I think it should be, to an ultimate decision on Report, I will ensure that the drafts supporting the various periods are adequate, and then the decision as to which period it should be would be a matter for the House, on a free vote, at that stage.
As to Clause 10, obviously there are amendments dealing with that and we will have to look at that later. Clause 10 gives the option of special arrangements, in relation to particular cases, to alter the minimum period, which some of the proposed amendments do not, and your Lordships may feel that, in principle, Clause 10 is the better route for that purpose.
As I said, these are extremely difficult matters. They require very careful consideration. I have not seen' evidence that would suggest that if a period of longer than 12 months is stipulated as a minimum that is likely to be particularly optimistic in terms of reconciling differences between a couple. On the other hand, for particular cases perhaps special provision should be made, and Clause 10 at least provides a basis on which that could happen.
6.15 p.m.
Baroness Young: I should like to thank my noble and learned friend for what he said. This has been a very useful debate. It has covered a variety of situations. I welcome what my noble and learned friend said in his last remarks. That is very much a matter for consideration between now and Report stage. Many speakers taking part in this debate have not previously taken part in the debate on the Bill.
We need to hold on to what we want to achieve with the Bill. I am quite clear in my mind that I should like to see marriage buttressed, because I believe that the high divorce rate is having a devastating effect on society. Every time one opens a newspaper one reads of more of its effects. I do not have to spell that out. The noble Earl, Lord Perth, made an extremely important point. He asked what signal this piece of legislation will send out to young couples contemplating marriage, let alone couples contemplating divorce. One of the signals which will go out, as the Bill stands, is that at the end of a year one can get a divorce, and one can do so against the wishes of the other partner. I acknowledge that it does away with the quickie divorce which can be
950
obtained in less than six months. That is a benefit. On the other hand, if we weigh in the balance the fact that anybody who wishes to divorce can do so at the end of a year, then divorce is being made easier.
I find it distressing that when I make these remarks I am accused of trying to punish a lot of people. I am not trying to punish anybody. I believe in marriage. I believe in individual responsibility. In particular, I believe that couples who have children should make a great effort to stay together and look after them. I make no pretence that other alternatives are better. Of course there are some circumstances in which divorce is right. But there is a great deal of talk, which was apparent in the course of the discussion today, to the effect that we must try to make divorce possible for the man who wants to go off with a younger woman, or the woman who wants to go off with another man, or the woman who pushes her young husband out of the house because she is bored with him. It is implied that we must understand such circumstances. Of course such things happen, but at the end of the day we ought to be concentrating on marriage. If we do not do that what kind of lead do we give, to young people in particular?
I turn to my noble and learned friend's profound remark that the period of a year is a matter of judgment. It was a matter of judgment to those who wrote the White Paper. The noble Lord, Lord Irvine, can no more show that a year is perfect than I can show that 18 months is perfect, or indeed that six months is. It is a matter of individual judgment. It is a judgment which has to be made in difficult and differing circumstances. Therefore, I am pleased to hear my noble and learned friend say that we should consider the different lengths of time. We should certainly consider the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, about hardship. When we come to Clause 10 I hope that we shall do so because there is much to be debated on that particular point. I welcome anything which enables us to concentrate on first principles.
I turn now to the question of children. I am very sorry to disagree with my noble friend Lady Faithfull on this subject. If one believes, as I do, that the Bill will probably result in more divorces, then of course more children will suffer. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Acton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod, felt that children would be better off. The truth of the matter is that all modem research shows that, difficult as marriage may sometimes be, children are better off in a difficult marriage where the partners stick together than if they divorce.
We all have endless evidence, having met young people whose parents have divorced. I know of a 15 year-old girl whose parents have recently divorced who spends almost all her time at a friend's house because she feels she has no home and there is nowhere where she feels at home. I have met people in their twenties whose parents have divorced who have never recovered from that. Therefore, let us not think that this is an easy matter. It is not. That is why I believe that we have to consider the matter very carefully.

951
I have been given a great many examples. Lawyers are full of examples. They deal with divorce all the time, and no doubt if there is more divorce it makes no odds to them. However, every year 20,000 to 30,000 couples edge towards divorce and then withdraw from the procedure because they have had second thoughts. That must be welcome. Generally, experience shows that if one has longer to have second thoughts one is more likely to have them, although that may not be so in every case. However, one opens up the possibility for those second thoughts with a longer period of time.
My noble friend Lord Elton made an important point. Of course there are differences between the case of a couple, both of whom consent to divorce and where there are no children, a couple where there are children and both consent, and a couple with children where only one partner wants a divorce. We are dealing with a variety of different circumstances. As my noble and learned friend said, it must be right to regard the period as a matter of judgment.
I was very glad to hear my noble and learned friend say that he would not want the period to be extended if it could be shortened. I agree with that. However, the last thing I would wish would be for the period of a year to be shortened. That would send out an even worse signal than the one I fear we are already sending with this Bill.
It is worth reminding the Committee, in case we should have forgotten, that every single piece of divorce legislation has been accompanied by an increase in the number of divorces. Although I know that that fact has' been dismissed because divorces increase for many other reasons, if we believe that legislation has no effect on behaviour there is no point in any of us sitting here at all. We must take the matter very seriously.
I am extremely grateful to those who have supported me, in particular my noble friend Lady Elles, the noble Earl, Lord Perth, and the noble Lord, Lord Stallard. It was the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, supported by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, which we considered at the beginning of these proceedings which identified the criterion against which we should measure every amendment, namely the buttressing of marriage. We should consider whether they support marriages that are in difficulties and parents who are struggling under great difficulties and temptations to bring up children in an extremely difficult world, one that is far more difficult than the world in which I grew up. We should judge every single amendment on the basis of whether or not it would buttress marriage. That is the real question before us.
It is not a question of satisfying adults who wish for some reason of their own to behave in some specific way. It is whether or not the provision buttresses marriage in the interests of the children. It is a matter of deep regret to me that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford feels that we must stand on this period of one year. To feel that one does not have the support of the Church on these matters I find deeply upsetting.
The Lord Bishop of Oxford:Perhaps I may say this to the noble Baroness. Speaking for myself, and I think
952
for various other bishops, we yet remain to be convinced of the advantage of increasing that period. We are still open to the argument but we are not yet convinced.
Baroness Young: I thank the right reverend Prelate. I appreciate that. I believe that the right reverend Prelate stated that he did not think that extending the year would improve the chance of saving marriages. However, what it might just do—it is again a matter of judgment—is to send a signal to those embarking on marriage. For those embarking on marriage, it is a hard undertaking. It seems to be thought that marriage is easy, but it is not. It is not easy for anyone, whether or not he or she is happily married. It is something that one has to work at. Marriage requires a great deal of unselfishness, and thought for someone else.
If we say at the beginning of a marriage, "Of course, if it all gets too difficult you can pack it in at the end of the year", one is sending a very strange signal to the country. The noble Lord, Lord Marsh, shakes his head. That is the signal which will be sent to the young people who will be the first to be involved under this legislation. Those who are 16 now may marry in five, six or seven years' time. There will probably he that many more divorces at the end of the year.
Lord Marsh: I was simply shaking my head as an indication that there could possibly be a different view.
Baroness Young: I entirely agree. We can all have different views. I do not happen to agree with the view expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, and we can agree to differ without, I hope, any hard feelings.
Like the noble and learned Lord, I think that the issue is central to this piece of legislation. It is very important. Perhaps we all need to reflect carefully on a number of issues: the length of time proposed; perhaps an amendment to Clause 10; and other considerations which may apply. A number of constructive suggestions have been made. I hope that perhaps I may have an opportunity to discuss these matters with my noble and learned friend before we reach Report stage.
The Lord Chancellor: Perhaps I should say that my noble friend has always an opportunity to discuss anything she wishes with her noble and learned friend.
Baroness Young: Perhaps we might talk about the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Coleraine Lord Coleraine moved Amendment No. 42:
Page 4, line 15, at beginning insert ("Subject to subsection (3A) below,").
The noble Lord said: Amendments. Nos. 42 and 51 are tabled in my name. During a previous debate at an earlier stage, my noble friend Lord Elton invited me to dip my toes into the debate; I think that he meant that debate. However, in view of the manner in which amendments are grouped, and what I consider to he the relative importance of this amendment, it seemed better procedurally that I did not seek to advance my amendment into an earlier group.
Amendment No. 42 is a paving amendment. The short purpose and intended effect of Amendment No. 51 is that unless and until husband and wife are agreed that their marriage is at best an empty shell, the divorce process shall not end but may continue for up to three years from the making of the statement which originated the process. That would be an additional two years.
Amendment No. 51 inserts the new subsection (3A) to Clause 7 of the Bill in the following terms:
"In any case where, by the end of the period of one year, one only of the parties has made a statement, the period for reflection and consideration does not then end but continues until the end of a further period of two years unless, in the meantime, the other party makes a statement, in which case the period then ends".
I intend to put forward for discussion this afternoon the case that we must distance ourselves a little in the Bill from unilateral divorce obtained on the request of one party only against the wishes of the other party. I make it clear to the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, that that is my agenda. Although I appreciate that the party who may be prevented from obtaining a divorce as quickly as he or she may wish may be in a position of hardship as a result of the amendment, if it were accepted, that is only a consequential effect of the amendment. It is not my intention that the amendment should punish anyone.
The same case has already been cogently argued in debates on amendments in the name of my noble friend Lady Young which sought a return to the fault-based system. In the absence of my noble friend Lord. Ashbourne, my noble friend also spoke in support of an amendment calling for a total ban on divorce except by the agreement of both husband and wife.
I support most strongly the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, pointing out that the Bill simply does not send out the right message so long as it proclaims that marriage is no more than a piece of paper. The marriage which this Bill offers resembles closely the piece of paper which Neville Chamberlain held in his hand with such good intentions so many years ago.
Having said that, I have to say to the Committee that I find it difficult to support the amendments so far debated which have the effect of writing unilateral divorce on demand out of the Bill, were it possible to improve the Bill in some other way. It is another way of achieving that objective that I wish to address now.
We are aware that the Zeitgeist demands that anyone who suggests that the divorce process should be in any way extended is told that to place obstacles in the way of a speedy and harmonious divorce will damage the harmonious relationships between the former husband and wife and their future spouses, and their subsequent spouses and lovers, and will hurt all the children involved in the marital restructuring and what comes after. The answer to that is that if a divorce is capable of being harmonious, it will be harmonious. However, my amendment unfortunately does not address the case where a harmonious divorce is likely to be achieved. It addresses the case where, frankly, husband or wife drags his or her foot. The reason may be a good or bad one.
In the language of the Zeitgeist it has to be bad. The Law Commission report and all that has followed make it quite clear that a husband or wife who does not wish a divorce is likely to be stereotyped as unreasonable, irresponsible or vindictive. From the other point of view, the party who starts the divorce process will be seen not as abandoning his family and marriage but as escaping from a loveless marriage.
In my submission, we would be acting with grievous injustice were we to legislate on the hypothesis that a husband or wife who expressed a wish that there should be no divorce were to be treated with contempt.
What of the children in all this? The period of uncertainty will be lengthened; the rancour may continue. But there will be a longer period in which the parties will have the opportunity to adjust to new residential and contact arrangements for their children, a longer period before the parties can enter into new marriages, and a longer period of adjustment for all concerned. Those may or may not be bad results. Against the spirit of the Bill, I would assert that the general rule should be treated as applying: that whatever is not done in a hurry is likely to be better done in the long run.
There is the important question whether the children will be unduly harmed by delay in the divorce. The issue has been raised from time to time. It comes back to the much more important question whether more harm is done by parental conflict than by divorce itself, because the effect of delay and uncertainty is only one aspect of the total effect of conflict.
At col. 824 of the Official Report yesterday I questioned the received wisdom which was put loosely because it is a complicated subject. The received wisdom is that the conflict causes more distress to children than the divorce. That proposition is put forward again and again in the White Paper and unidentified recent research is given as the authority for it. I asked my noble and learned friend at some point to provide chapter and verse to flesh out the assertions and I hope that he will do so in due course.
If we legislate for divorce on unilateral demand, however the proposals are wrapped up with pretty ribbons and pious protestations that the proposals are supportive and not destructive of marriage as an institution, we shall paradoxically create a situation where we simultaneously destroy the institution of marriage and destroy the need for any legislative framework for the ending of civil marriages. For if marriage is to be no more than a piece of paper, a casual short term contract, who, I ask, will need the right to divorce? All that it will achieve is the right to contract another similar marriage. More importantly, we also damage the incentive to enter into marriage and to undertake the good commitments which marriage should involve for couples who may be pondering between marriage and cohabitation.
The last point which I wish to make is one which I have made before. It is that although we cannot, by passing laws, hold marriages together, we can at least pass laws which provide a framework of support for marriage. For a couple embarking on marriage, unless

955
they are cynically uncertain of each other and themselves and of the likelihood of their being constant to each other and to their vows, it will be a strength to know that without mutual agreement neither can abrogate the marriage. There can be no abrogation of marriage on demand. In that way trust will be fostered and with trust there will be a better chance that the marriage will deepen and thrive. In the last resort, with that thought in mind, I beg to move.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Monson: I could not possibly support the efforts of the noble Baroness, Lady Young, to lengthen the period proposed from one year to two, or even 18 months in all cases. Incidentally, I did not wish to interrupt her closing remarks on the previous amendment, but I believe that she was mistaken in suggesting that marriages could be terminated after one year under the Bill as it stands. As I understood the comments of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor yesterday, in responding to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Meston, no marriage could be terminated in less than two years from the date of the wedding.
However, there is something to be said for the compromise represented by the pair of amendments, Amendments Nos. 42 and 51. The occasions when one hitherto happily married partner in a marriage runs off with a younger person after many years, indeed decades of marriage, is by no means as infrequent as some Members of the Committee have suggested. A longer period would give more time for second thoughts and for disillusionment to set in in such instances.
But I wonder whether the extra two-year period suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, goes a little too far. An extra 12 months would probably be adequate. However, having said that, I broadly support the principle of the amendments.
Baroness Young: I wish to speak briefly because this amendment is linked to those which we have just been debating. I hope that when my noble and learned friend replies he will consider this amendment—which addresses a slightly different point from those which I addressed—in the context of the whole issue of extending the time.
I understand the object of my noble friend Lord Coleraine. The amendment's effect will be to ensure that the period for reflection and consideration will begin only when the other party has been informed and notice has been served in accordance with the rules of the court. I hope that what I say is correct.
Lord Coleraine: I believe that the noble Baroness is addressing another amendment which still has to be moved.
Baroness Young: I apologise to the Committee. In the excitement of all the amendments and the amount of paper with which I am surrounded I made a mistake. However, I hope that my noble and learned friend will consider the amendment with the others.
The Lord Chancellor: I have addressed the principle of the amendment in what I said on the previous one.
956
I believe that there may be special circumstances where the parties do not both accept that the marriage has broken down. Merely to make consent vital within the period is to ignore the nature of marriage as requiring continued commitment. It seems to me that the responsibilities associated with marriage require to be carefully considered.
Is it suggested that in the non-consent case the period of three years will realistically be taken up by a kind of consideration? I do not know how likely that is. If the period is reasonable for consent, how does it become too short for considering matters where the parties do not consent? I understand that in some circumstances the settlement of outstanding issues between the parties may take longer than a year. Where there is no consent that may be so, but the present provisions in the Bill try to take account of that. I do not understand how a different period for cases of non-consent is justified by reference to what would take place in the longer period.
My noble friend asked about the basis for various matters referred to in the White Paper. At this stage in such a debate it is important to focus on the point which appears to me to be vital. It is that unnecessary trauma introduced into the divorce process is damaging or apt to be damaging to the relationship between the parents being divorced and the children. Therefore, it is not directly relevant to consider other matters. We are discussing what the divorce procedure should be and in that context it appears to me that the evidence shows that the relationship with both parents is important after the divorce. It is vital at this stage that we do nothing to damage that, on the assumption that the divorce will take place.
For that purpose, one compares the situation of two families, both of whom have been divorced in different situations. The first is where the divorce process has generated unnecessary conflict between the spouses. I am not saying that there will not be conflict, trauma or bitterness between the spouses. If we compare the situation where the divorce process has generated unnecessary conflict between the parties with the situation where it has not, the relationship between the parents and the children after the divorce is likely to be better in the case where there is no unnecessary trauma than in the first example.
I do not wish to quote all of the evidence on this matter, but I refer to the Exeter Family Study to which repeated reference has been made. The situation of conflict is described in the following way:
"The data from this study shows that the particular outcomes measured for the study children tended to be worse in intact families with high levels of conflict between the parents than in families where conflict levels were low. In agreement with nearly all other studies, the data also suggests that violence in the family has a strong association with low self-image and other poor outcomes. It is likely, moreover, that both conflict and violence are under-reported in the intact family group.
In this study, however, it was possible to compare the effects of family disruption on children in re-ordered families with those of conflict and/ or violence on children living in intact families. From the multivariate analysis carried out, it appeared that the most significant factor of those examined was the re-ordering of the family—the loss of a parent on one or more occasions—rather than the presence of serious conflict or violence that was most closely associated with children's poorer outcomes as measured. This is

957
consistent with a recent study in Oregon, which found a cumulative and linear relationship between behavioural measures in a group of boys and the number of family transitions that they had undergone. In the present research, violence in the past relationship between the child's biological parents was reported by seven out of 19 resident parents in the re-disrupted families".
I continue:
"Meanwhile, it is clear from previous work that it is not the loss of a parent per se that appears to be associated with a poor outcome. The outcomes associated with loss of a parent by marital breakdown are different and generally more adverse in the long-term than those associated with bereavement.
It is also clear that where major conflict and intra-family violence has been a feature of the marital relationship, the act of separation is often accompanied by immense relief for those who have been the victims or observers of the violence. It would follow from an understanding of the psychological processes involved that the children would experience a stability after the ending of a violent parental relationship which would enhance their well-being, at least in the short term. But the response is complex. Children's relief is also often tempered by concerns about the non-resident parent who may, or may not, have been violent to the child and may, or may not, have been a 'good parent'. The importance of the relationship with the non-resident parent, usually the father, has been written about extensively, particularly by Richards [and others], and is confirmed by the data from this study. Children expressed concerns about the non-resident parent being on their own and not having anywhere to live. Children were also concerned if contract arrangements were nebulous, and did not always find it easy to discuss the concerns for one parent with the other. Richards' study underlines the importance to the child of the biological parent, whether the family live together or not".
I cannot read out the whole of the report because it is obviously lengthy. I should like to read just one other. passage on pages 57 and 58:
"What the data does not show, however, and did not set out to demonstrate, is whether the outcomes would have been better if parents in unhappy marriages had stayed together 'for the sake of the children' instead of separating".
There is a lot to study in the report, but I take from it the important point that where divorce is postulated a good relationship with both parents should subsist after the divorce, and everything that we can possibly do to secure that is well worth doing.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I am interested in what the Lord Chancellor has just said. I shall have to look at the quotations from the Exeter report. They appear to give support to the amendments that we are now discussing. I should like to reiterate what I said yesterday about the family and agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, has said today. The important point with which I and the noble Lord are concerned is that marriage is a contract between two people and made before people. It is a contract which they have freely entered into, and presumably it is one that they mean to keep. What concerns me, and I believe many other noble Lords, is that one party can unilaterally abrogate the contract no matter what the circumstances.
There are circumstances in which delay is desirable and will save the marriage. My present marriage has lasted 35 years, and a very good marriage it has been. Undoubtedly, one passes through various periods when one feels that one has had enough of it and it is time to
958
go. (I do not speak here of my own marriage). After a little while things may get better and the parties may say thank God they did not take the final step.
There are periods in people's lives when their health is different. There are periods in women's lives which are extremely difficult and need to be sympathetically dealt with. Where only one party to the marriage has expressed a desire for a divorce, sometimes for his or her sake it is better if the other party, who perhaps has had years of experience of living with that person, says that he or she does not want that to happen in such a short period as a year. This amendment is helpful because it will extend the period so that a party who says he or she wants to end the arrangement into which he or she has freely entered is given the opportunity for second thoughts.
Time is very important. I believe that the year's notice is insufficient, certainly where only one party has given notice. We have already heard the argument about whether a year is sufficient if both parties are agreeable, but in the case of one party I believe that one year is insufficient. There is no time for various ideas to be worked out, and it is not fair to the other party anyway. I believe that these amendments should be supported.
Lord Elton: We went over this ground, or ground very much like it, at great length earlier. Therefore I shall be very brief. I regret that my noble friend did not join these amendments with the others in the last group. These amendments are addressed to the particular case where one party to a marriage suddenly decides to rush off. We have had some wonderful illustrations of how this may happen. Suddenly one party is smitten by another attractive party and wishes to leave the marriage in a hurry with the other party left behind grieving over the marriage and not accepting that it was over. My noble friend's amendment would make an opportunity for the unwilling partner to force a slowing down of the period, during which the departing party might be persuaded to have a change of mind.
As I understood my noble and learned friend, he argued against that principally because it was against the interests of the child to protract the process. I did not hear him address the question of whether the interests of the child nevertheless might be greatly served if the extended period resulted in a reconciliation. I believe that his argument was merely that if it had not worked in one year one could not tell that it would work in two. I feel sure that I must have misrepresented him and wonder whether he could just elucidate that point.
The Lord Chancellor: I am not aware of any body of opinion expert in this area which suggests that after a year has passed the probability of anything in the way of a reconciliation would arise. In other words, it is not in any way established that lengthening the period beyond a year is likely to increase the chances of a reconciliation. As I said, it is a matter of judgment. That is why I feel that there may be special circumstances in a particular case to which the court should have regard. But I do not believe that as a general rule it follows that reconciliation is likely to be assisted by going along

959
with a period of more than a year. I do not see that the question of whether or not the parties are consenting or in any kind of agreement affects that.
Lord Coleraine: I am grateful to all those who have spoken in this short debate. I did not feel that the answer given by my noble and learned friend to my noble friend Lord Elton was persuasive. I introduced the amendment as a focus for discussion. I do not propose to go over the ground again. I just wish to thank my noble and learned friend for his answer to the question that I raised yesterday and again today; namely, what is the recent authority for the proposition that, in general, conflict affects the children much worse than divorce and separation?
He has now told us that the authority is the Exeter Family Study. I found that surprising but I shall read all the extracts from the study that he quoted to us. Indeed, I shall read certain parts of the study which he did not quote. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 43 and 44 not moved.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Serota): I must tell the Committee, in calling the next amendment, Amendment No. 44A, that if the amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 45.
[Amendment No. 44A not moved.]
Lord Coleraine Lord Coleraine moved Amendment No. 45:
Page 4, line 16, leave out ("is received by the court") and insert—.
("(a) is received by the court, where both parties have made the statement, or
(b) is served (in accordance with rules of court) on the other party, where only one party has made the statement.").
The noble Lord said: This is a very simple amendment. We learned yesterday that the statement which has to be made will be served on the other party. At present, the Bill provides that when the statement is put into the court the period for reflection and consideration then commences. It seems to me, as a matter of common sense as well as practicality, that the period for reflection and consideration should be a full 12 months. That is obviously achieved when the statement is made by both parties; but when it is made by only one party it cannot be achieved unless the period starts when the other party receives the statement from the court or whoever is charged with serving the statement. I beg to move.
Lord Meston: I speak briefly in support of the amendment. It seems to me that the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, has an important point. If time is to run from when the statement is simply lodged with the court, rather than when it is received by the other party, it may mean that the period of 12 months is abbreviated for the other party if the process of service, for whatever reason, takes longer than would normally be expected. Therefore, I hope that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will consider this amendment or one like it.
The Lord Chancellor: This point was raised in somewhat the same form this afternoon by my noble
960
friend Lady Elles. I certainly indicated then, and I am happy to do so in answer to my noble friend's amendment, that this is a matter that I should wish to consider. The rules will certainly provide for service and it may well be that in some circumstances at least there should be an adjustment in respect of the nature of the service. I should want to consider those two matters together. I am grateful to my noble friend for raising this issue.
Lord Coleraine: I am grateful to my noble and learned friend for his comments. I understand him to say that whatever is done with respect to the point that I raised will be on the face of the Bill. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 46 not moved.]
Lord Irvine of Lairg: Perhaps I may ask the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, whether it is wise to embark upon the discussion that we shall have on the next amendment, Amendment No. 47, with the extent of discussion that I anticipate going into the dinner hour. I am well able to move it and I am in the Committee's hands.
Baroness Trumpington: On Tuesdays, the dinner hour starts at half-past seven, if possible. If the noble Lord feels that he can deal with the amendment in just over half an hour, that would be great.
7 p.m.
Lord Irvine of Lairg Lord Irvine of Lairg moved Amendment No. 47:
Page 4,line 16, at end insert ("except where subsection (8) applies").
The noble Lord said: I can deal with this amendment in a few minutes. What I had in mind was the interest which my observations might attract elsewhere in the Committee rather than my own efforts in delaying the proceedings. In moving this amendment I shall speak at the same time to Amendment No.61. Amendment No. 61 is the important amendment, under which it is proposed that,
"The court shall have the power to abridge the period for reflection and consideration … [provided that] the requirements of Clause 2(1) are satisfied and the court is satisfied that it is necessary in the interests of the parties or of any relevant children to dissolve the marriage before such period [of one year] has elapsed."
I make the observation that there is great merit in a year for reflection and consideration. As I have said before in Committee, marriage should not lightly be undertaken nor should it lightly be set aside. Before I put the argument as to why there should be a discretion for the period of a year to be abridged it is worth observing, contrary to what has frequently been said in this Committee—namely, that this Bill will make divorce easier—that this Bill will make divorce harder to obtain in the great majority of cases in the sense that it will require a mandatory period of a year for reflection and consideration before a divorce application can be entertained.
On the first day of Committee I described how 75 per cent. of divorces are "quickie" divorces, granted within a few months of the divorce petition. I argued

961
that a mandatory year for reflection and consideration during which mediation takes place is much more seemly than the conveyor-belt process of the current divorce law which the Bill replaces.
I echo the observation of the noble and learned Lord that fault-based divorce or an excessive period for reflection and consideration beyond what is reasonably required for that purpose is productive of stress and trauma; it is damaging to both parents and children and serves no sensible purpose. It is said that if a longer period were stipulated, people would take their obligations more seriously. That is not a proposition which appeals either to reason or common sense. As the noble Lord, Lord Elton, said on a previous occasion, we must address the world as it is and not as it ought to be.
The corollary of arguments of that kind is that the more difficult we make divorce to obtain, the stronger will the institution of marriage become, with the logical conclusion—which only needs to be stated to be rejected—that if we make divorce impossible, then marriage will become stronger than it could be in any other circumstances.
It would be a pity if the vast improvement which the Bill signals—that is to say, a mandatory year for reflection and consideration—were made unusually restrictive by robbing the judges of any discretion to do justice in the rare cases where a divorce should be granted before the expiry of the 12-month period. At the risk of wearying the Committee, I shall repeat the example I gave on Second Reading because it is a. telling one.
A man who was separated from his wife more than 10 years ago was diagnosed in February of last year as dying from cancer. He and his wife had not divorced; neither of them had seen any need to do so. He was living with his new partner. She became pregnant. He wanted, so far as he could, to provide for her and their child after his death. His lawful wife was entirely supportive. She too was living with a new partner.
The lawful husband had substantial pension policies. Within a few months he was able to obtain a divorce from his wife with her full agreement and of course the co-operation of the courts. The divorce was finalised in June of that year; he died in September. His new wife now has the benefit of a widow's pension under his occupational scheme, to the great benefit of not only herself, but also of their child. Happily, the child was born last summer.
I observed on Second Reading and repeat, that I shall be more than surprised if the noble and learned Lord thinks other than that the courts should be given flexibility to grant divorces in less than one year in genuinely unusual and special cases. I hope Members of the Committee will find that to be a compelling example. It could be said that the couple should have divorced earlier and in a sense therefore they were the authors of their own misfortune. No doubt that is true; but they did not. I say it would be extraordinarily harsh to say that they have only themselves to blame. I say that no court should be prevented from doing justice in such an exceptional situation.
I hold to the view to which not all those who are presently Ministers of the Crown subscribe; that is, our judges are to be trusted to do justice in exceptional cases where it is necessary in the interests of the parties or the children so to do. The noble Lord, Lord Meston, who knows much more about this in practice than I do, will confirm that the whole ethos of the family judges is overwhelmingly child-centred. Over the past 20 years they have developed a sensible and highly sophisticated approach to the repercussions of failed marriages. They should be trusted with the discretion which the amendment would give them.
My Amendment No. 102 is not grouped with Amendments Nos. 47 and 61; it is to be found tucked away in another over-heavy and unhelpful grouping with Amendments Nos. 97 to 117. I mention it because I accept the corollary of the amendment which I am presently moving. Amendment No. 102 is intended to be the converse of Amendment No. 47. Just as the courts should have discretion in exceptional cases to abridge the year for reflection and consideration in the interests of justice, so also, I accept, they should have the same discretion to extend the period where justice so requires. I do not shrink from the proposition—I do not believe that the noble and learned Lord does; on the contrary—that divorce should be made harder to obtain; that it should take longer than one year where justice so requires.
The noble and learned Lord, in responding to a number of amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, indicated that, whereas in his opinion one year is right in the generality of cases, special cases where a year may be too short should properly be dealt with under the vehicle of Clause 10. I agree with that. We have not yet come to Clause 10. By parity of reason, I believe that the law should be flexible enough to allow for unusual special cases where one year is too long.
Why is a year always right as a minimum? Why may it properly be lengthened under Clause 10 but, if the amendment is to be opposed, never abridged in special and unusual cases? I believe that there should be flexibility both ways and that judges should be trusted to identify those unusual and special cases where one year is either too long or too short. I beg to move.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: The noble Lord, Lord Irvine, asserted that we do not make marriages stronger by making divorce more difficult. Even if that were the whole truth, it would not follow, as he implies, that by making divorce easier, we do not make marriages weaker. All the evidence is to the contrary, particularly from 1969, and there is the astonishing jump of 44 per cent. in the number of divorces, and therefore in the number of children affected, as soon as the Act came into force. It was not a sudden surge of backlog; on the contrary, the increase continued from that point at the preceding rate on average of 1 per cent. a year. That is 1 per cent. compound interest, so to speak.
There is also the graph that followed. Just as the divorce rate increased so concomitantly did the rate of marriage decrease. Although they do not appear in the same statistics, perhaps the right reverend Prelate will have in mind concomitantly, too, that the rate of church

963
attendances also decreased. The other graph that one can consider shows that not only did the divorce rate increase but so did the number of one-parent families and illegitimacy.
At an earlier stage the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, was inclined to doubt my assertion that the 1969 Act had had that effect. She denied, in effect, that it was propter hoc, it might have been post hoc. She quite rightly instanced the influence of the increasing economic emancipation of married women, and that is undoubtedly a factor. However, married women did not suddenly become 44 per cent. more emancipated in 1971.
There is also the comparison with Europe. Our divorce rate is higher than any in Europe and about double their average. In Europe, too, married women became economically emancipated. The noble Baroness was quite right in saying that that is a factor. There are others such as the fact that we have become more divorce-minded as a result of the war. The increased mobility of the population is another cause and no doubt also the increased use of contraception, removing part of the menace attendant on adultery earlier than that.
The noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, very bravely asserted that he was convinced that the rate of divorce would decline as a result of this measure. He was thereby much braver than my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor who was extremely cautious when interrogated by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, to that end.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: I hate to intervene, but believe that the noble and learned Lord will accept, when he reads Hansard tomorrow, that I made no assertion about the divorce rate lessening.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: If the noble Lord says that, naturally I accept it: I did not make a note. I am riot a betting man—or, more truthfully, I am no longer a betting man—but I am willing to have a small wager with the noble Lord, Lord Irvine, that the effect of this measure will be an increase in divorce. I am willing to have that bet with others. Perhaps the noble Baroness, Lady Faithful!, would care to take it up. I do not suppose that my noble and learned friend would be willing.
7.15 p.m.
Baroness Young: I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Irvine, will not be surprised to hear that I am unhappy about this amendment because, having moved amendments which would have lengthened the time, conversely I am, of course, unhappy about the amendment shortening it. As regards amendments which I moved earlier, I believe that the noble Lord said that he would not want it to be thought that if he was going to lengthen the time the amendments would necessarily shorten it. That is a very important proposition just as it is a very important statement that the noble Lord, Lord Irvine, made about these amendments.
He quoted once again the "quickie" divorce, which occurs all the time. The figures which I have on this matter need consideration. If I am wrong perhaps someone will correct me. At present about three-quarters of all divorces
964
are based on fault. Of those, 30 per cent. are completed in under six months, but 26 per cent. only if there are children under the age of 16. Twenty four per cent. of the divorces take over one year and 26 per cent. if there are children under the age of 16. Those statistics come from the OPCS Table No. 21, Table 4.7. Twenty six per cent. of all divorces currently are based on separation, which takes two years.
We need to see in proportion the number of "quickie" divorces. They do not generally occur where there are children. Only 15.9 per cent. of all divorces take place in under six months where there are children under the age of 16 years. Again, these are OPCS statistics.
What worries me much more about the noble Lord's amendment is that it is chipping away at the one-year period. The noble Lord said earlier that in his judgment a year was right. We could debate that for a long time. Now he is saying that there are, of course, a number of cases where a year is too long and that it should be shortened.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: Does the noble Baroness accept that in her amendments she proposes that in the generality of cases a year should be extended in certain circumstances to two years or even to five years. Does she appreciate that my amendment says nothing about the generality of cases. It accepts that a year is right in the generality of cases. I accept that, but she does not. All that this amendment is proposing is that in exceptional cases the court should have power to abridge the year just as the noble and learned Lord has indicated that he believes it right that in exceptional cases one year, which is correct in the generality of cases, should be capable of being extended to meet the needs of special cases.
Baroness Young: Perhaps I may answer that particular point. I believe that the one-year period should be extended as a matter of principle. I have said that a year is too short. I agree that it is a matter of judgment. We shall come back to consider that again and I shall not repeat all the arguments now. For those reasons I believe that to shorten the period would send out an even worse signal to everybody. We are left with all sorts of circumstances to be decided by a judge. This amendment is chipping away at the year. The next time that we have a piece of divorce legislation, it will become easier still and the year will be shortened. We are on a slippery slope.
In principle, I am unhappy about allowing a court to abridge the year. Indeed, I very much support much of what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, said on that. None of us can tell what the outcome of this measure may be, but if the history of other divorce legislation is anything to go by, we know as an absolute fact that every single piece of divorce legislation has been followed by an increase in the number of divorces. Nobody hopes more than I that that will not be the case with this Bill, but I am bound to say that history is not on the side of those who think that there will be fewer divorces as a result of this legislation.
Baroness Hamwee: I do not think—
Lord Monson: Perhaps—
Baroness Trumpington: The noble Baroness has been seeking to intervene for some time.
Baroness Hamwee: I do not think that any of us is standing on our dignity in this Committee. However, I wanted to support the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, in Amendment No. 61. In doing so, I confess that it is a better amendment than my amendment, Amendment No. 50. Perhaps I may put my arguments on the next group in this debate, and refer also to Amendments Nos. 48 and 49 which stand in the name of my noble friend Lord Russell.
I support Amendment No. 61 because of the exceptional nature of the circumstances to which it refers. The amendment provides that the court must be,
"satisfied that it is necessary in the interests of the parties or of any relevant children to dissolve the marriage".
As I read the amendment, that is a high barrier to overcome. If the amendment were to be agreed, I am sure that the court would exercise that discretion quite sparingly. The Committee will not have needed to be reminded of the moving description given by the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, on Second Reading. The circumstances which would meet the criteria in this amendment must be rare and terminal illness is perhaps such a circumstance. However, the provisions could apply also in immigration cases where unmarried partners are proposing to move to another country.. I suspect that that situation might not meet the criteria, even though the couple had to be married in order to fulfill the immigration requirements.
My noble friend Lord Russell referred to domestic violence in his amendment. Again, that is a special situation, but not a rare one. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor referred to the Exeter study, from which I gleaned that it is right to give the court the discretion to consider the particular circumstances of a case. Although the benefits to a child of the parents remaining together (even where there is domestic violence) might be more than those that would appertain if the parents separated, there may be circumstances in which it would be better if the divorce process were to go forward. In cases involving domestic violence, the partners may have been separated for some time before getting together again. That is a pattern in marriages involving violence. The wife often tries very hard, principally for the sake of the children, to make a go of the marriage and may return home on many occasions before deciding that the marriage cannot be made to work. Where a spouse—usually a wife—has suffered domestic violence, a good deal more reflection and consideration may already have been given to the position before the formal period starts than might be the case in other marriages.
Lord Monson: Having supported the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, in his amendments, I do not think that I am being at all inconsistent in supporting the noble Lord, Lord Irvine, in his. I refer particularly to Amendment No. 102 which we shall be considering
966
later. Surely flexibility in legislation is always better than rigid inflexibility. After all, we are talking about exceptional cases.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: I support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Irvine, but wonder whether the drafting of Amendment No. 61 needs to be reconsidered. I do not have any solution to the problem that I am raising, but I think that it is a very real problem. The amendment states:
"if … the court is satisfied that it is necessary in the interests of the parties or of any relevant children".
I understand why the amendment has been drafted in that way, but under those provisions as drafted would it not be possible for the court to decide that it was necessary to dissolve the marriage in the interests of the parties although that was not necessarily in the interests of the relevant children? I am not saying that that is what will happen, but that is how it appears to me. I am sure that it will be possible to draft the amendment slightly differently to obviate that happening.
The Lord Chancellor: On reading the amendment, I think that it would have the effect which the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, mentions because it states:
"it is necessary in the interests of the parties or of any relevant children".
I believe that that is what would happen.
The purpose of the year is to provide a period for consideration and reflection which can be used to demonstrate that the marriage has irretrievably broken down. I believe that that is the minimum period required for that purpose. It is possible to instance hard cases and the noble Lord, Lord Meston, gave an illustration of his unhappy time in the divorce courts. That example of where the five-year period had not expired was unfortunate in the circumstances of that case.
My feeling—it is quite a strong one—is that in order to ensure that a marriage has indeed broken down before a divorce can be granted, it is necessary to provide a period for reflection and consideration. That is stipulated as the general period. If no improvement takes place in the relationship, it may be right to extend the period in certain circumstances and the provisions are drafted to allow for that. I do not think it right to make a provision that would shorten the period because I think that it is necessary to send out the clear signal that marriage is an important relationship and that a year is required before it can be dissolved once one or both of the parties has initiated the necessary procedure.
The statistics show that in 1993 there were 26,162 divorces in which children under 16 were involved which took under six months; and there were 45,814 which took between six and 12 months. So the overall number involving children in one year amounted to 71,976, whereas there were 22,703 involving children which took more than a year. It is interesting to note that there were 26,690 cases in which no children under 16 were involved which took under six months.
Reference has been made to the quickie divorce. I want to make it clear in relation to that matter that my fundamental point about fault-based divorces under the present law is that, by the very nature of things, there are more fault-based divorces than divorces which are

967
not based on fault. That is what I regard as the entirely inappropriate signal being given about the state of the divorce law. The fact that they take less than a year is of course an additional factor. That is the primary way in which I look at the matter.
I do not know that I want to go into details about how divorces have been affected by different legislation. I do not believe that it is possible to use history to show what the effect of this legislation will be. It is wise to consider many matters other than the precise change in the divorce law when one looks at the past. In the meantime, I am of the strong view that a minimum period for consideration and reflection is necessary to show that the marriage has irretrievably broken down. That minimum period is judged, rightly, to be one year. It would not be appropriate therefore to give the court power to abridge it.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: I appreciate of course that it is well possible to take the view that a year for reflection and consideration is always necessary to establish that a marriage has broken down. I had hoped however that the noble and learned Lord might have thought that the rigidity, the absoluteness, of that position might yield to a unique and highly meritorious situation, but it would seem not. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Trumpington: I beg to move that the House be now resumed. Perhaps I may suggest that the Committee stage begin again at 8.35 p.m.
Moved, That the House be now resumed, and that the Committee stage begin again at 8.35 p.m.—(Baroness Trumpington.)
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: The Government will, I believe, concede that they owe a duty not only to themselves to get legislation through this place and through Parliament, come what may, but also to pay some regard to those Members of this place who are concerned about a very important measure. It would be greatly for our convenience if the noble Baroness could indicate at what time the Government propose we should rise this evening. Last night it was a quarter to 11. I trust that it will be nothing like that this time.
Baroness Trumpington: The matter is very much in the hands of the Committee. We have now been discussing the Bill for three days from 3 o'clock. On the first day we did five amendments. We are now still on page 4 of the Bill. We must get on with the Bill. I can make no promises about time. Apart from anything else, it is not in my gift to do so. We must get on with the Bill.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I think that the noble Baroness will admit that no time has been wasted. We have gone on in a measured way taking amendments. There has been nothing in the nature of a filibuster. That would in any case be contrary to the practice of this place. The practice is to allow the Government to get their business, but, reciprocally, the Government must give us time to discuss their legislation. This is most unsatisfactory.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: The noble and learned Lord is right, the Government are entitled to get their business eventually. Before the stages are mapped out, consultation takes place through the usual channels. The Labour Front Bench accepted the logic that four days should be set aside for the Committee stage of this Bill. It is—
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I take it that the noble Lord would not assign any magic to four days.
Noble Lords: Order, order!
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I shall continue. This side agree that four days are sensible. If there is a contrary view, no doubt the noble and learned Lord will make his view known to the Government Chief Whip. He has done so. He has more than once raised the issue of what is an appropriate day's work. The Labour Benches are flexible. We certainly subscribe to the noble and learned Lord's view that this place should not sit late, but if by not sitting late the timetable slips, then we are prepared to consider, periodically, how best to catch up with the timetable. All I can say is that I do not detect any sign that we are likely to rise as early as a quarter to 11 tonight. If that is the case, we on these Benches will reluctantly subscribe to the view that if we need to go beyond 10.45 p.m. we are prepared to do so.
Baroness Trumpington: Perhaps I may say how much I appreciate what the noble Lord, Lord Graham, has said. If the noble and learned Lord, who is unhappy about the position, feels that he would like to continue the conversation, may I suggest that he continues it with the usual channels and not in the Chamber, where the dinner hour, or pleasure, Motion has already been moved.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Potato Marketing Scheme (Commencement of Revocation) Order 1995
7.40 p.m.
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 12th December be approved [4th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, several noble Lords have told me that they wish to speak to this Motion. They, and I suspect all those other noble Lords who have chosen to remain in the Chamber, know well what this order is about. Many will have read the report of the debate on this order in another place. I will therefore keep my opening speech short so that I may have the maximum time to reply to points raised by other noble Lords without trespassing on the time of those who will wish to continue the Committee stage in an hour or so.
The draft order in effect specifies 1st July 1997 as the date when the potato marketing scheme will be revoked. The Agriculture Act 1993 gave Ministers power (subject to affirmative resolution) to revoke the potato marketing

969
scheme. After due consideration Ministers, and indeed your Lordships' own Select Committee, concluded that (even in the absence of an EC potato regime) Britain should not continue to impose unilateral market controls.
In announcing the intention to revoke the scheme, the Government recognised the need for the industry to have time to adapt to the conditions of the free market. The scheme was therefore allowed to continue in modified form for three years, the modifications being based on suggestions made by the Potato Marketing Board and the National Farmers Union. The industry has made very good use of the intervening period. All the modifications were speedily introduced and so much progress has been made towards the free market that the board has already decided that it will not operate quota controls this year.
Section 27(1) of the 1993 Act requires the Potato Marketing Board to apply to the agriculture Ministers for approval of a scheme to transfer its property, rights and liabilities to a successor body or bodies, unless growers in a poll tell it not to. Not only has the industry agreed on the necessity of a levy-funded successor body but also all sectors of the industry have reached consensus on the form which such a body should take. I am not in a position to comment today on the details of what the industry is proposing since they have yet to be published and they must be agreed with growers before being presented for ministerial approval. But the very fact that such a consensus exists is another testimony to the progressive attitude of our industry.
This order is but a milestone on a journey begun some three years ago, with a year and a half yet to travel. The journey has been without incident so far; the rest of the road has been well mapped and holds no terrors for us or, we believe, for the industry. I therefore commend this order to the House and look forward to listening to what other noble Lords have to say. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 12th December be approved [4th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Lucas.)
7.43 p.m.
Lord Stanley of Alderney: My Lords, I must declare an interest in that I have been a potato producer for a little over 41 years. The trouble with this order is that it leaves too many issues unresolved. The unresolved issues are: first, what action will the Government take to secure common rules of competition in the European potato market? Secondly, what measures will the Government take to ensure that the United Kingdom potato producers can compete on level terms with their European competitors after June 1997, bearing in mind that there is no chance whatever of a lightweight regime as the United Kingdom is in a minority of one? Thirdly, will the Government undertake an investigation into the state of competition of the European potato market, including information on all member state aids? I ask my noble friend to give an undertaking on those lines with a promise that the results will be made in a Statement to the House, supported by a written report, before 30th June 1997.
970
The most worrying of those issues is the likelihood of United Kingdom producers facing subsidised European potatoes. Your Lordships may remember the disastrous 1992 season when many United Kingdom potato producers went bankrupt due in part to the fact that other European countries supported their producers. For instance, France supported its producers to the tune of 140 million francs and Italy to the tune of £12 million. Other countries, including Portugal and Spain, did likewise.
United Kingdom potato producers are among the most efficient in the European Union and we are more than prepared to hold our own. However, we cannot survive against subsidised produce and producers. The answer to the problem would be a lightweight regime, which was mentioned during the passing of the 1993 Act, making state aids illegal or requiring any help to be given equally between member states. Subsidising one against the other is totally unacceptable, which is what has and what will happen in a surplus year. I hope that my noble friend has sympathy for such a view—I believe that he has—but I am afraid that the Government's record sadly lacks commitment and results. For instance, my right honourable friend Mr. John Gummer said in Standing Committee F on 4th May 1993:
"I am merely saying that, without the very likely European regime, if it became clear that Britain was shooting itself in the foot by continuing the current potato marketing regime, no sensible Government would stand aside and say, 'Let the Dutch take it over. Let the French subsidise their industry into defeating ours'. In those circumstances, we would take measures, which would have to be approved by affirmative resolution, to replace the current potato marketing scheme with those elements that benefit us in the quest for export and import substitution and remove those elements that disadvantage us".
Those are strong words and I wonder whether my noble friend will stand by them. Will he explain why when in 1993 my right honourable friend Mr. John Gummer referred to "the very likely European regime" there is still no sign of one? I must remind your Lordships that we are now in 1996. Moreover, I must also remind your Lordships that in a similar vein my noble friend Lord Howe said during the passage of the Agriculture Bill:
"we are 95 per cent. of the way towards achieving an EC regime and approval of these proposals is virtually a formality".— [Official Report, 25/1/93; col. 1098.]
We all make mistakes—I am told that very occasionally I do—hut it is now 1996 and we are approaching 1997. We are three years on from those assurances and in my opinion there is no possibility whatever of a lightweight scheme. That was pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Carter, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, and the noble Earl, Lord Perth.
All that I can ask is that the Government honour the assurances of my right honourable friend Mr. John Gummer to protect the United Kingdom potato producers if needs be by taking a similarly courageous line as my noble friend Lord Lucas took last week over Emtryll by either disregarding European Union rules and blocking imports or by giving equal support to our producers.
7.48 p.m.
The Earl of Perth: My Lords, I too must declare an interest either as a grower of small potatoes or a small grower of potatoes, whichever one wishes. I grow some seed potatoes. I do not wish to comment on the order, which was debated for one-and-a-half hours in the Commons. That was a good debate. Furthermore, we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderney, tonight. I am behind him on the great importance of our competing on a level basis with the rest of Europe. It is essential that in one way or another that should be the case. I know that the Government are trying but I should like to see them try a little harder. The suggestion was the lightweight regime: that is a good thought.
My purpose in rising to speak tonight concerns a much more mundane issue, which is the issue of brown rot. It will be known to those of your Lordships who are interested in potatoes. I can give you the Latin name but it is very difficult to pronounce and I do not think it would add to our debate. I am sure all your Lordships will know that this is an infectious and very serious disease. It has spread widely—I do not want to exaggerate—in Holland, from which we get a considerable amount of seed. The disease has also found its way to France, Italy and Egypt. I believe there has even been one case in England—and I stress the word "England".
The Dutch themselves are very conscious of this disease and they have initiated a scheme of control—that is, a scheme of inspection. But what does the. inspection allow? It means that 220 tubers are inspected out of something like 140,000. I am not very good at arithmetic, but I want to make the point that the inspection is minimal because it is such a small proportion of the whole.
We get a similar inspection—I do not mean similar as regards an exact 220 tubers out of up to 25 tonnes, but that the English authorities are also inspecting. I think I am right in saying that the disease has already come to England, but of course I speak for Scotland. Above all, our whole success lies in our success as growers of seed potatoes. If our seed potatoes become infected, the outlook for Scotland is really a disaster. Therefore my purpose in speaking tonight is to raise this issue. We feel so strongly about it in Scotland that there has already been a voluntary scheme among producers to ensure that what is imported to Scotland is good stuff. However, the system is voluntary and the real issue I want to address tonight is whether the Government could revert to a practice which was common only two years ago. I am sure it is allowed under the rules of the European Union: namely, that they again announce that we have protected region status.
If that is accepted and could be arranged by the Government, it would give us great comfort because we have already worked out a sort of voluntary scheme. This would ensure that the Ministry of Agriculture would themselves inspect and reinforce the whole process. I ask for this because it would ensure that quarantine could be properly applied, not only in Holland and not only generally on borders, but that we
972
can have certainty, in so far as one can have certainty, that every step will have been taken to stop what would be a disaster for Scotland; that is brown rot coming to that country. I have given the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, notice of this question and I very much hope that he will be able to announce that something along these lines would be possible.
7.55 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I apologise for not having put down my name to speak. If I may, I should like to say a brief word not so much about brown rot—problem though that is—but about the order that we are discussing.
I was one of those who took an active part in the passage of the 1993 Act through this House. I am also a member of your Lordships' European Committee which has said that it considers the time has come for the Potato Marketing Scheme to come to an end. I live in Angus not very far from the noble Earl, Lord Perth, in seed potato growing country. Until 1989 I used to be a grower myself. I no longer have any financial interest to declare, but of course I am very interested in the subject, and I am very glad to see my noble friend Lord Lindsay beside my other noble friend on the Front Bench this evening.
I remember well the anxieties that were expressed, particularly by farmers and not least by seed potato growers in Scotland, about the dire effects the ending of the statutory potato marketing scheme would have on their businesses; how they needed the quota system and the intervention mechanism. They talked about the enormous problems which would occur if those regimes were brought to an end. In the event, the Bill became an Act and the industry has responded quietly, effectively and with considerable entrepreneurial skill, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, indicated.
The dire results that were foretold have not in fact come about. With the backing of the whole industry, including the growers, the Potato Marketing Board has slimmed down its membership and its staff. It has ended the intervention mechanism but set aside the quota system. In the meantime the growers have, as the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, said, had some downs and they have also had some ups, which I do not think he mentioned. They have had several good years and in fact in our part of the world we have had the best two years since 1980. As a result, there has been a good deal of investment in equipment, together with much replenishment.
The United Kingdom processors have responded to the increased investment and they have increased the proportion of the United Kingdom potatoes that they use and have decreased the amount they import. I believe that the time is right now, for the whole industry's sake, that the clock should be started ticking to begin the final year of transition to a free market. Seed potato growers in Scotland have the same anxieties as those expressed so ably by the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley. There is still no regime in Europe which will ensure that our farmers will be able to use the rather surprising phrase that they can "grow their potatoes on level playing fields". They wonder what will happen if no

973
regime emerges and so I wonder whether the Minister could tell us what chances he thinks there are of a regime emerging. If no such regime comes, what is the likelihood of farmers in other member states being subsidised while ours are not? Is there anything to prevent it, apart from the lightweight regime which we have hoped so much it would be possible to bring about? Should that subsidy happen in other countries, what will the Government do about it? Can they help us or should we simply hope that we can compete because of our efficiency? Maybe we can but, to use a Scots phrase, "I hae my doots".
An answer to such questions would give confidence to farmers. Nevertheless, there is much progress so far towards the plans for the owner/owned body which will enable everyone to work together. They are setting themselves up for the free market. I agree that the time has come to move towards the free market, and therefore I support the adoption of the order.
8 p.m.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, I have listened with interest to the speeches that have been made so far. They are not, in fact, far removed from what I had intended to say. Since 1993, when the procedure was originally initiated in the Agriculture Act, it is true, as the noble Baroness said, that the Potato Marketing Board has set about sorting out its own affairs very successfully. It has been able to halve the levy which it imposes on growers. Moreover, as the. noble Baroness also said, that has resulted in over £50 million being invested in additional processing capacity and the increased use of British potatoes. But, above all, it has reduced by 24 per cent. the imports of processed products, which was one of the great problems that faced us in this country.
So far so good. However, with the laying of the draft order, both the NFU and the Potato Marketing Board expect the Government to do all that they can to ensure that the industry can function in a truly free market in Europe. We would like an assurance—and it has to be an assurance—that the Government will put all their efforts into the work of preventing other EU Members from giving state aids to their producers which, at the moment, is prevalent. As everyone has said, the best way to achieve that is by the creation of a lightweight EU potato regime.
The House of Lords' Select Committee welcomed the proposal made by the European Commission to set up a regime for potatoes. That would be the only way to prevent member states from distorting the market by giving aid to their own producers. Can the Minister assure us that that is the Government's aim and that they will put all their efforts into getting agreement in Europe on a lightweight potato scheme?
Further, we would like an assurance that the Government will facilitate the setting up of a successor body to the potato marketing scheme in the form of a development council for the industry. It is essential that such a council be made accountable not only to the Minister but, above all, to members of the industry itself
974
who, after all, are the ones who paid for the setting up of the body. It would be quite wrong for such a body not to be accountable to the whole of the industry once it has been established.
Between the period of this order being passed and coming into force, we believe that, in order to satisfy the concerns of the industry, the Minister should undertake to make a statement to the House dealing with such concerns well before the 1997 deadline. That would enable second thoughts to be had if the requests from the industry have not been fulfilled. We could then consider how we should proceed from then on. If any European producers are still able at that time to receive national support, British producers would expect nothing less.
8.4 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, the House will be most grateful to the Minister for the very lucid explanation that he gave to the background of the order. I am sure that the noble Lord will have more to tell us in his reply to the debate. The order takes us back to the very interesting debates that we had while the Agriculture Act 1993 was going through the House and the other place. In fact, we know that the Bill actually started its passage in this Chamber.
The House will recall that the relevant amendments moved by myself and the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, were accepted by the House, against the wishes of the Government. However, after some tidying up of the drafting had been done, they were later accepted by the Government in another place. That is why we are having this evening's debate.
While re-reading the reports of the debates which took place both in this House and in the other place, I was struck by the foresight which was shown by Members of all parties in both Houses. However, I hasten to add that that foresight was not shared by the Government. Somehow we thought that the Government would wish to use their powers under the Act to revoke the potato marketing scheme without waiting for a European regime. That is exactly what is happening.
Your Lordships may remember that the Government's original intention was to slip in a revocation order under the negative instrument procedure. Prolonged protests—and I emphasise the words "prolonged"—by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, myself and others did produce a change of heart by the Government. At least as a result we have, through the affirmative resolution procedure, the chance to debate the order this evening.
I have no particular wish to burden the House with quotations from the previous debates on the matter. However, it is relevant briefly to quote from the remarks made by the Minister at the time, the noble Earl, Lord Howe. In Committee, he said:
"Our aim will be to ensure four things: first, a level playing field across Europe for potato production; secondly, that the UK industry can meet all the needs of the market; thirdly, that the UK industry can contribute to the export drive; and, fourthly, that decisions are

975
based clearly on the best scientific and technical knowledge available. I am, of course, unable to foresee the outcome of these discussions".—[Official Report, 10/12/92; col. 340.]
Again, in Committee on the same day, the Minister said that,
"should Ministers decide to revoke the potato marketing scheme, other than in the light of an EC regime, they would of course consider the marketing conditions in Great Britain before certifying that the scheme should be brought to an end and would wish to ensure that the decision to bring it to an end was in the best interests of the industry as a whole. I hardly think that my noble friend"—
who I believe was the noble Lord, Lord Renton—
"needs such a reassurance, but for the record I am happy to give it".—[Official Report, 10/12/92; col. 347.]
Finally, when we debated the Select Committee's Report on the potato marketing scheme in 1993, the noble Earl, Lord Howe, said:
"The Government have said repeatedly that they are committed to seeing a level playing field for potato producers within Europe. That means achieving fair competition for our own producers. We are backing our own producers. We shall not see them disadvantaged in whatever regime is agreed to. We shall fight for our own producers in Brussels".—[Official Report, 17/5/93; col. 1616.]
In repeating those quotations I should emphasise that I do not in any way impugn the motives or the beliefs of the noble Earl, Lord Howe, at the time. I believe that he was genuinely repeating the view of the Government, although we did not agree with them. In effect, what the Government said then can be summarised as, "You must trust us", with the argument both stated and implied that, of course, the Government would not leave the British potato grower unprotected with no European regime and. no British marketing scheme. But that is exactly what is going to happen.
As many of us foresaw, we are revoking the scheme without the prospect of even a lightweight European regime. We are, therefore, entitled to ask the Government—and I do not apologise for repeating them—for a number of assurances. However, before I set them out, perhaps I may make a most important point. The Minister is no doubt briefed to say that, if other member states aid their producers, we will take action through the Commission to bring that to an end. If the Minister is not briefed to say so, then he jolly well should be.
Perhaps I may give your Lordships two quick examples in that connection. Perhaps the House will remember the illegal aid that the French Government gave to their pig producers. Eventually, but very slowly, that was stopped by the Commission and the French Government were fined. Another example would be the notorious Italian failure to introduce milk quotas. By the time the Commission takes action in such circumstances—even if the offending government are fined—the damage to the market through unfair competition has been done and the producers in the other member states have already suffered damage to their businesses.
We believe that the assurances that the Government are obliged to give are as follows. First—and to coin a phrase—I start with the level playing field. Just exactly how, both in terms and in detail, do the Government intend to ensure that there is free and fair competition
976
between the European potato producers in the single market? If there truly is free and fair competition, then our growers have nothing to fear.
Will the Government, as has been suggested, undertake to report to Parliament on the overall situation before the scheme ends on the 30th June of next year? Such a report should set out exactly what is happening in other member states and the implications for the United Kingdom producers of any European regime that may be in place at that time, although that looks unlikely. If we are not able to secure that report from the Government then, through the usual channels, we shall attempt to secure a debate in this House so that the Government can be called to account.
The third, and more technical, point is that the most likely successor body to follow the PMB is the Potato Development Council, which will be set up under the Industrial Organisation and Development Act 1947. The noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, secured the amendment to the Agriculture Act 1993 in the House, supported by these Benches, which set out the powers and responsibilities of the successor body in Section 28 of the 1993 Act.
Let me state the powers and responsibilities. First, schemes for the orderly marketing of potatoes, including marketing intelligence and the identification of marketing opportunities, research and development, the generic promotion of potatoes, the collection of statistics on the potato industry and, finally, a forum for discussion of matters of common interest to producers, purchasers, retailers and consumers of potatoes.
Are the Government completely satisfied that all these proposed functions can be undertaken by the development council under the rules of the 1947 Act? Will the Government give their full weight and support to the proposal for such a development council? I understand that the Minister is unable to comment in any way on proposals which have not yet been published, but, in principle, do the Government support the idea of a potato development council as a possible successor body to the PMB? It is not unfair to ask the Government to give that assurance because they said that that was their view at the time that we passed the 1993 Act.
The order is exactly what most of us expected when we debated the 1993 Act. I am not accusing the Government of bad faith. They never said that they would not revoke the potato marketing scheme in the absence of a European regime; on the other hand, they never said they would. However, we do rely heavily now on the Government using their best endeavours to ensure that UK potato producers are not left entirely at the mercy of subsidised, unfair competition from imported potatoes, and that any successor body to the PMB serves producer interest, consumer interest and processor interest as well as the PMB served them in its existence.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: Before the noble Lord sits down and my noble friend replies, although I may have misunderstood him, the noble Lord said that the Government would be entitled to take other countries to court if there were subsidised produce coming in from

977
other countries. Perhaps my noble friend will answer this, but I do not think we can do this unless there is a regime. Perhaps my noble friend will address that point in his reply.
Lord Carter: The noble Lord is correct in saying that if the Government detect that there has been unfair competition they can ask the Commission to deal with it. I think that is correct, but I am sure that the Minister has the answer.
Lady Carnegy of Lour: Before the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, sits down, may I ask him this question: when he asked the Government whether they would support the development council which the industry plans to set up, did he mean financially? Did he mean that they would put taxpayers' money in or simply that they would give other forms of support?
Lord Carter: I suppose that we, on this side of the House, have to get used to answering questions from the Back Benches on the other side. No, I meant just the principle of a potato development council. On the point of being accountable to levy payers and not to the Government, under the terms of the development council, the council, under the rules of the 1947 Act, would be accountable to those who paid the levy.
8.15 p.m.
Lord Lucas:My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Perth, rather strayed from the subject at hand to that of brown rot, but since he had given good notice of his intent would, with the leave of the House, take the opportunity to discuss that disease at length at the end of my reply. I should now like to say how sad I am that the noble Lord, Lord Carter, seems to have fallen victim to it. Gordon Brown rot is a very saddening condition; it reduces what should have been a crisp and weighty speech to something which was astringent but without much substance. I am sure the whole House wishes the noble Lord a speedy recovery.
As my noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour said, the dire prognostications of ruin if the potato marketing scheme ended have proved to be wrong. Looking back at the potato marketing scheme, it is clear that it was a burden on enterprising growers who wanted to expand; it reduced the potential for investment and employment growth in the growing and processing industries, and it cost the consumer dear in the form of higher prices. We will all be well rid of it.
Many noble Lords raised the question of the linkage of the revocation of our potato marketing scheme with agreement on the CAP regime for potatoes. The Government are well aware of the widespread concern within the industry that subsidies by other EC states will harm our potato growers. We certainly agree that such national aids are highly undesirable, which is why we have argued forcefully—and will continue to argue forcefully—that a lightweight EU regime for potatoes should be introduced as soon as possible in order to bring potatoes within the competition rules of the Treaty of Rome. The UK has consistently supported the Commission's proposals for just such a regime, but we
978
have yet to secure the agreement of other member states and an early introduction of a CAP potato regime seems unlikely. The noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, pointed out that this is not quite what my noble friend Lord Howe said three years ago. During a report stage of the Agriculture Bill on the 25th January 1993, he said:
"My advice is that following the December Agricultural Council meeting we are 95 per cent. of the way towards achieving an EC regime and approval of these proposals is virtually a formality".— [Official Report, 25/1/93; col. 1098.]
There was a moment last Saturday when I thought we were 95 per cent. of the way to getting a draw. I suspect that my noble friend and I both under-estimated the French; we were certainly both wrong. But the lack of a regime is no reason for delaying our own progress towards a free market.
I would make four points. First, we see much disadvantage in delaying a most worthwhile change in the UK system. The industry has been in limbo for a number of years and further delay and uncertainty can do nothing but harm. Indeed, the Potato Marketing Board itself has been pressing forward with commendable speed towards the free market, and it would be a tragedy if we were to jeopardise that process.
Secondly, the various national aids have existed for some time and have not prevented our growers from increasing their exports to continental Europe.
Thirdly, these aids have no direct effect on our growers. Indeed, both intervention and the sort of storage aids which form the bulk of these measures tend to maintain higher prices in the local market than would otherwise be the case, if anything making exports by our growers easier. One of the main reasons for bringing our scheme to an end was that by the use of intervention it did indeed keep prices high, thus sucking in imports, notably from Holland.
The noble Baroness, Lady Robson, and the noble Lords, Lord Carter and Lord Stanley of Alderley, asked whether the Government would produce a report before July 1997 as to the conditions that were then existing. I am unable to promise or offer hope of such a report, but I will draw the request to the attention of my honourable friends responsible.
Various noble Lords asked about the question of a level playing field for our producers. We are not in a playing field, we are in a potato field, and we must expect a few lumps and bumps.
Something which has not been mentioned is the enormous advantage which our potato producers have because they are farming in a Britain run by the Conservative Party. That gives them enormous benefits in terms of employment costs and in other aspects.
Lord Carter: It is a sign of the desperation of the Tory Party that it is going after the chip fryers' vote.
Lord Lucas: Desperation is not a characteristic of the Conservative Party.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, we are looking for some constructive answers from the noble Lord, not so-called amusing jokes.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, it is a constructive answer. Other nations may have to subsidise because costs

979
imposed by governments on their producers are much higher than our costs. That is what my right honourable friend the Prime Minister means when he describes the "stakeholder economy" as back-door taxation.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, can my noble friend say what extra costs they have?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, like every other employer in EC countries, they have all the costs imposed by their employment legislation.
Lastly, the removal of quota restrictions will make our enterprising growers more competitive and so better able to overcome the effects of aid elsewhere.
Some play was made of the words of my right honourable friend Mr. Gummer in another place when the Agriculture Act was going through that House. The quotations have been somewhat selective. If I may be allowed my own quotation from what he said I would cite the last remark that he made on the subject which, while also selective, represents the summing up of his views and the situation. He said:
"If there is a single market, it is barmy to run a protectionist regime when one has no protection. For that reason, I believe that those who promote the continuation of a scheme which was set up when Britain was a national market when Britain is now part of a single market that stretches as far as Sicily are wrong,"—[Official Report, Commons, Standing Committee F, 4/6/93; col. 227.]
The noble Baroness, Lady Robson, raised the question of appointments to the successor body. Perhaps I may say at this stage that we support the proposals. We believe that the Potato Marketing Board and the. growers are heading in the right direction, although I do not wish to comment at this stage on the detail.
The successor body would be set up under the Industrial Organisation and Development Act 1947. That stipulates the categories of members who must be appointed to a development council. The order setting up a development council will specify the number of persons from each category to be appointed. As I understand it, the industry has already agreed on the proposed membership, which will give the growers, as the major levy payers, a majority. I therefore see no problems arising over representation.
The Act also stipulates that membership must be by ministerial appointment. There is therefore no scope for direct elections to the council. However, successive Ministers have given undertakings that recommendations by industry bodies as to membership will be taken very much into account in making appointments. Since future appointments will, following the Nolan Report, have to be approved by the Commissioner for Appointments, there is clearly no way in which it can be guaranteed that any particular nominee will be appointed.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, raised with me the question of whether we had powers under the 1947 Act to permit the new development council, or whatever it may be, to do all that it is wished it should do. I believe that we do, but I do not wish to detain the House with the details and I shall write to the noble Lord on that subject.
980
Perhaps I may now turn to brown rot. Brown rot is caused by a bacterium—Pseudomonas solanacearum— which is widely distributed in tropical and warm temperate regions of the globe. It and its close cousins are responsible for a wide range of plant diseases which often pose a serious threat to crops, and may in severe cases limit an infected region's ability to grow potatoes and other vulnerable crops. Fortunately for us, northern Europe is generally too cold to allow the bacterium to flourish. However, it can nevertheless take hold (as happened in Holland last year) if growers and governments are not on their guard.
Without banning potato imports entirely, we cannot provide a complete assurance that the bacterium will not get into the UK. What we can give is an absolute assurance that the Government will continue to operate the best possible proportionate safeguards to protect our industry. The Government have established a screening programme, at no cost to the industry, to test all stocks of seed potatoes imported from the Netherlands. The Dutch, too, are testing all seed potatoes before export, so we have a belt and braces policy. No sampling procedure can offer a 100 per cent. detection rate. However, our combined testing protocols provide a strong safeguard which I know our growers value very highly. The Government acted quickly, in the light of the outbreaks in Holland, to require all imports of Dutch potatoes to be notified in advance so that our monitoring arrangements could be applied effectively.
What we are doing, therefore, is to act against the risk of a serious outbreak by rigorous checking of imports, by controls on potato processing waste, and by keeping a close eye on domestically produced potatoes.
As noble Lords will know, we have already seen one case of the disease, in a potato crop in 1992, and we have detected the bacterium in riverside plants of woody nightshade, which it can also infect. Our experience of the one UK outbreak so far, and of similar scattered outbreaks overseas, leads us to believe that if future outbreaks occur—for which we should and must prepare—we shall be able to deal with them effectively by quarantine arrangements for infected farms. Further discussions will be taking place in the European Community to establish common rules to apply in such cases.
The noble Earl, Lord Perth, raised in particular the case of the Scottish seed potato industry. Scotland and some other areas in the United Kingdom are already protected regions. That is an EU term which means that only high grade seed may be imported. It is not a guarantee against the importation of infected potatoes, and it offers no powers of quarantine or import prohibition. However, I can, I hope, give the noble Earl considerable comfort.
The present position in Scotland is that last year only five consignments of seed potatoes were imported from Holland. This year we have been active in discouraging imports, and no such imports have yet been made. We shall work closely with the Scottish industry, which is well aware of the dangers of brown rot, to ensure as best we can that no problem arises in future and that Scotland's reputation is preserved untarnished.

981
There are a whole range of crop diseases and pests that have the potential to invade the UK. We have the duty to take proportionate measures to protect ourselves against them. What those measures should be will vary from case to case and from time to time. We should not go over the top and ban imports when that is not justified. We should do to others as we expect them to do to us.
It is our judgment that the action we are taking, together with that taken by the Dutch, the EU and others, will lead to the current Dutch outbreak being kept under control. However, we shall remain constantly on the lookout for any evidence of the disease spreading and, if we find it, we shall not hesitate to introduce whatever measures are appropriate to protect our growers.
With those remarks, I commend order to the House.
The Earl of Perth: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may ask a question. Did I understand him to say that protected region status is already in operation in Scotland?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, Scotland is already a protected region. However, that does not give the protection that the noble Earl hoped for.
Lord Carter: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down can he make an important point clear? If we take the likely scenario that by the end of next year there will not be a potato regime, did I understand him to say that if it was clearly shown that there was unfair competition. we could ask the Commission to act under the single market rules?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I do not wish to commit the Government on such an important matter on the spur of the moment. However, it is my understanding that we cannot act. That is why we need the lightweight regime and why we are fighting for it. At the moment potatoes are neither part of the single market nor part of the common agricultural policy. Therefore, we have no basis for compelling other states to give up their subsidies.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, I am sorry to return to the subject. However, if that is the case and, as my noble friend says, there is no chance whatever of having a lightweight regime he is in fact saying that other countries can subsidise their crops as much as they like and we can do nothing. I think that he said something about doing to others as they do themselves. Perhaps that should apply in this case.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I hope that I said that the form of subsidies that they use have not in the past been a form which is damaging to us, because they tend to raise prices in those other countries and therefore make it, if anything, easier for us to export to them. If the situation became wildly different the Government's opinion might be different. However, that would be speculating on a matter which has no basis in the past, or, I hope, in the future.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Lord Lucas: I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.35 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 8.30 to 8.35 p.m.]

Family Law Bill [H.L.]
House again in Committee on Clause 7.
[Amendments Nos.48 to 58 not moved.]
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 59:
Page 4, line 31, leave out ("made") and insert ("received by the court").
The noble and learned Lord said: This amendment makes a drafting improvement. The word "made" should be amplified to say "received by the court". I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 60 and 61 not moved.]
Lord Meston Lord Meston moved Amendment No. 62:
After Clause 7, insert the following new clause—
ORDERS EXTENDING THE PERIOD OF REFLECTION
(".—( ) If an application for a divorce order has been made by one of the parties to a marriage, the court may, on the application of the other party, order that the period of reflection is to be extended for a specified time, or until a specified event has occurred.
(2) Such an order (an "order extending the period of reflection") may be made only if the court is satisfied that it would be equitable and just, in all the circumstances, for the period of reflection to be extended.").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 62 suggests that the court should be empowered in appropriate cases to extend the usual one year period for reflection. This power could be an added inducement to the parties to resolve matters which otherwise might be possible grounds for an application for an order under Clause 10 to prevent the divorce, in particular if the powers in Clause 10 are to be enlarged as some Members of the Committee propose. The delay which Amendment No. 62 allows could be for either a specific period or until the occurrence of a specific event; for example, the conclusion of a religious divorce. However, again I do not wish to anticipate the arguments which will follow in connection with Clause 10. I suggest that the power proposed in the amendment gives the court more flexibility and control than the Bill at present allows. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: I indicated earlier the possibility of an extension in some cases but I should think it wise to make the instances very specific. Therefore, I believe that it would be best to take that into account in connection with the hardship bar. It appears to me to distort somewhat the period of reflection to extend it in that way on the application for the divorce order.
I regard it as important to keep the whole structure as simple and as clear as possible. Therefore, with the extension powers that exist in relation to Section 41, and the possibility of the hardship bar being used for

983
extension, it is a sufficiently complicated structure for us not to complicate it further. I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to agree with that view.
Lord Meston: I am not entirely convinced that the proposal would unduly complicate the provisions in the Bill. It was intended in certain cases to avoid the necessity of invoking the hardship bar. However, I wish Ito consider the matter further and at this stage beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Lord Chancellor: Perhaps at this stage we should take the question that Clause 7 stand part of the Bill.
Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
8.45 p.m.
Clause 8 [Attendance at information sessions]:
[Amendment No. 63 not moved.]
Lord Simon of Glaisdale Lord Simon of Glaisdale moved Amendment No. 64:
Page 4, line 34, leave out ("(except in prescribed circumstances)").
The noble and learned Lord said: This amendment is grouped with a number of others of which Amendments Nos. 66 and 68 are in my name. They can be discussed. conveniently with Amendment No. 64. The rest are in the names of other noble Lords, except for Amendment No. 72 which could more conveniently be taken separately.
The amendments are purely probing. Amendments Nos. 64 and 66 omit the words: "except in prescribed circumstances". In Amendment No. 68 the words omitted are "of a prescribed description". The Committee will wish to know why my noble and learned friend needs the powers and what kind of circumstances or description he proposes to prescribe. I imagine that the provision is not inserted just in case it might come in useful if needed at some time. I believe that Members of the Committee are willing to grant the powers but Parliament is entitled to know why they are required and what is envisaged. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: The principles that I sought to follow in relation to the information sessions are ones which we discussed in relation to an earlier amendment. I have in mind that there should be meetings to which people would go who contemplated starting proceedings. It is fairly clear that some people would be unable to do so; for example, if a person were housebound, disabled or if going to a particular place might put them at risk of violence. There are other possibilities in which alternative arrangements for the giving of information might be suitable rather than requiring someone to attend a session. For example, it might apply if someone were in custody. There may be other circumstances. I cannot envisage everything
984
possible but situations might exist in which it would not be right to require a person to attend such a session. That is the reason for the power.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My noble and learned friend has not dealt with Amendment No. 68 and the words "of a prescribed description".
The Lord Chancellor: The precise nature of the situations requires to be considered in the light of the various possibilities that might arise. The description on page 4 at line 41 applies to the type of document that might be raised. The Bill states:
"Where one party has made a statement, the other party must (except in prescribed circumstances) attend an information session before … making any application to the court … with respect to a child of the family; or … of a prescribed description relating to property or financial matters".
It might not be everyone who would require an information session. For example, it might be a matter of answering a request from the court which required a statement to be lodged in answer. In that situation it might not be necessary for an information session to be attended. That is the purpose of allowing for a prescribed description of a document to be the foundation for such a requirement.
Baroness Hamwee: Together with the right reverend Prelate, I have my name to this group, to Amendments Nos. 69 and 73 and also to Amendment No. 78.
I need not detain the Committee long with Amendment No. 69, the essence of which we debated yesterday. I tabled the amendment, as I made clear in my speech yesterday, not because the information session should be by way of a meeting but in order to ask the noble and learned Lord whether he had in mind that sessions might be in private. That is the second limb of Amendment No. 69. An information session may he a group session or a private session where the parties did not consent to a group session.
Secondly, I mentioned "an accredited provider" in Amendment No. 69 and Amendment No. 78 deals with that. I seek to suggest that there should be regulations providing,
"for the identification, qualification and responsibilities"
of the information providers who will undertake the work. Perhaps such accreditation could be considered in more detail after the pilots which the noble and learned Lord proposes.
Thirdly, Amendment No. 73 proposes that in subsection (5) of the clause, rather than the regulations "may" make provision, that the regulations "shall" make provision. I do not know what the right reverend Prelate had in mind, but I wished to ask why it was necessary to provide for matters which could be included in the regulations on the face of the Bill, and why those particular ones had been chosen. If there are to be regulations that deal with information sessions in general, it appears that there is quite a long list of items that will need to go into those regulations, and can go

985
into those regulations without subsection (5) being there at all. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord can assist as to why those aspects are singled out.
The Lord Bishop of Oxford: A number of amendments are down in my name in this grouping: Amendments Nos. 71, 71A, 79 and 80. I hope that it will facilitate the business of the Committee if I associate with them some amendments down in my name in what I presume is a following grouping; namely, Amendments Nos. 71B, 154, 163, 163A and 163B. All nine amendments have to do with making marriage counselling available and supporting those agencies and organisations which in one way or another support marriage.
Clause 8 concerns attendance at information sessions. Amendment No. 71 seeks to ensure that those who attend are offered counselling sessions with an approved marriage counsellor. Whether the couple accept this is entirely voluntary, but if this Bill is to strengthen marriage, as all of us here hope, and to facilitate divorce where that seems to be inevitable, the availability of professional marriage counselling needs to be made known from the outset. Amendment No. 71A is similar. It is designed simply to ensure that the counselling that is offered is free. This relates to the new clause proposed by the noble and learned Lord in Amendment No. 162, which I along with other noble Lords very much welcome, and my amendment to that, Amendment No. 163. Amendment No. 71A seeks to ensure that the. couple are not only told that counselling is available but that it will be available without cost to them.
Amendment No. 71B is concerned simply with the definition of an approved marriage counsellor. We do not want just anybody coming in who believes that he or she is qualified to advise and counsel in this very sensitive and difficult area. Amendment No. 79 spells out the kind of information that needs to be given to a couple who are contemplating a divorce, both the benefits of marriage counselling and the effects of divorce on the parties and the children.
Amendment No. 80 seeks to ensure that when regulations are drawn up under this clause the Lord Chancellor will consult the qualifying organisations. (I apologise for the fact that this aspect involves a huge range of amendments, but I assure you that all of them concern marriage counselling in one way or another). Amendment No. 154 is related to the amendment of the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, Amendment No. 162. That enables him to make grants to organisations which support marriage in various ways. In the light of his amendment, my amendment may not be as relevant as it was when it was put down.
Amendment No. 163 seeks to make the point, which has already been referred to, that the marriage counselling that is offered at the information session is free. Amendments Nos. 163A and 163B are concerned with definitions; the former with the definition of marriage support services, and the latter with marriage counselling.
986
The nub of these amendments is the belief that this Bill, properly amended, can support marriage. We are not pessimistic about the Bill and do not believe that it will necessarily lead to an increase in the number of divorces. However, if the Bill is to buttress marriage, it must be made quite clear that marriage counselling is available at any time during the year of reflection and consideration, and that if people wish to avail themselves of it such counselling will be free. We also wish to ensure that those who offer counselling are well trained and supervised. The corollary to that is that the marriage support agencies from whom such people will be drawn are in a financial position to train and supervise, as well as do the other valuable work of research into marriage and marriage education.
I hope that I am not over optimistic when I say that, among all the very divisive amendments on this Bill, the House will be able to unite around supporting these amendments. We believe that if these amendments are accepted it will be possible through the Bill to buttress marriage in a significant way.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: I desire to offer general support to the spirit of these amendments. In a sense, this Bill is a kind of prolegomenon for a new philosophy, but the amendments go to the question whether the detail has been thoroughly worked out. In principle, the Bill reposes a great deal of confidence in mediation as a substitute for litigation, and marriage counselling as a sensible substitute for conflict leading to break down.
I understand the spirit of these amendments to give detail to what may be thought of as mere warm words—that is, mediation and marriage counselling. I can ask the same questions as are implicit in these amendments of mediation as of marriage counselling. Who are the mediators? Who accredits them? What professional standards do they apply? When public money is involved, we need to know the answers to these questions. I suggest that precisely the same important questions may be asked of the marriage counsellors as are asked of the mediators. The cost of it all is critical. Therefore, I lend general support to the spirit of these amendments.
9 p.m.
Baroness Seear: I should like to make a very brief point. I strongly support these amendments. I should like confirmation from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor that the physical setting in which these information sessions, the meetings, will have to take place will be as informal, unthreatening, friendly and unbureaucratic as possible. The people will be in a disturbed state of mind and the physical setting in which those activities will take place can make a great deal of difference to the way in which people receive what is said to them. I should very much welcome the comments of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor on that point.
Lord Jakobovits: Reference has once again been made to marriage counselling and to the opportunities for information sessions. I associate myself with so

987
distinguished a friend as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford and rise to add a few comments. The debate has now lasted virtually three days and I have attended most of it with enormous eagerness. If so far I have not contributed to the debate it is not because I have nothing to say. It is more that what I would have said on the specific issues that have been raised has been said so much more effectively by other speakers, notably the noble Baroness, Lady Young, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, in part, and in great measure by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. They were words which gladdened my heart and I am fully content to look upon them as representing my own Thoughts also.
I greet with enormous relief and enthusiasm what one might almost call the revelation that there is unanimity on the importance of preserving and strengthening marriage, which should not be taken for granted. There are today powerful advocates of the denigration of marriage by alternative life styles, as is the term used. En this Chamber there is still represented a respect and reverence for tradition and for the assumption that marriage is the basic unit of any civilised society and that is profoundly gratifying. What has been said in favour of that position commands my great admiration and enthusiasm.
Yet if there is something that I can contribute, it is to say that I miss two specific dimensions from this debate, which is now well into its third day. First of all, I miss a sense of alarm. The discussion has been conducted as though we have to accept the present utterly unacceptable figures for divorce. I suspect that we are not communicating to the public at large the profound unease that should stir the nation over a catastrophe in our social fabric which has no precedent and few parallels. That now gives us the questionable distinction of being the country, at any rate in Europe, with the highest divorce rate.
There must be something radically wrong in the whole structure of our society and in its education and commitment to certain moral levels, if we can witness a disaster on a scale that involves something like 600,000 individuals every year. I say 600,000 because in a divorce there are usually at least four people involved—husband, wife and, say, two children, on average—and that easily gives the figure that I mentioned. If anything on that scale were to happen by way of physical illness—a plague that were to strike us—how stirred we would be and how enormous would be the efforts of the leaders of the nation, spiritual as well as temporal and at every level, to create a profound sense of uneasiness and therefore to lay the foundations of a meaningful response.
We are dealing here with tens of thousands of children who might be crippled for the rest of their life through suffering from such a plague. They are the innocent victims of it. Therefore I feel that, in the first place, something has lo go out from us—we were speaking of messages—whereby we alert and mobilise our schools, our clubs, the media and perhaps even our Churches. We must realise that we are facing a
988
catastrophe of enormous proportions, to which the first reaction must be one of alarm, so that it seizes us with a feeling of profound unease and anxiety for the future.
Let me turn to the more positive angle. I believe that the key to the entire problem of the virtual dissolution of the marriage bond today and the cheapness with which it is treated on such a wide scale does not lie principally in making divorce more difficult or taking a longer or shorter time for reflection. It is already too late when a marriage has reached the stage at which either one or both parties seek an exit and actively think of breaking their marriage vows and the marriage bond. By then, the principal damage has already been done.
The first line of defence against marriage breakdown is the way in which we train our children, our students, our brides and grooms before they enter marriage to realise that there are mutual obligations; that marriage is not only there for what one can take out of it, but for what one can give to someone else. We must therefore indicate to them the commitment and earnestness of marriage, if necessary, compulsorily.
If we had a traffic accident rate of anything like the scale of the casualties from which we suffer through divorce, we would do anything to ensure that before anyone is given a licence to drive a car, proper and adequate training are given and tests taken to ensure that the training has taken effect. We would not allow such an enormous rate of slaughter to take place on our roads without taking some precaution to ensure that we do not hand the wheel to someone who is not adequately trained to take care of others who may be affected, whether they be fellow passengers, pedestrians or indeed the drivers themselves.
The principal line of defence therefore should be to ensure, by proper legislation, that no one enters into what is now a minefield of marriage without some form of adequate preparation, with warning signals and perhaps even a little guide as to how to choose a partner. Today it is all done so haphazardly. Today they fall in love; tomorrow they fall out of it. There is no sense of realism in relation to the earnestness required in making the biggest decision of one's life; that is, the choice of a life partner. It needs some form of regularised government control and state-supported activity whereby no one is allowed to enter into this most sacred contract on which the stability of our whole society depends without some form of realisation of what is at stake.
Some Members of the Committee gave us extremely valuable accounts of their personal experiences. My wife often reminds me that when we got married, immediately after the marriage, her mother took her aside and said: "Now, daughter, you are linked, bonded to your husband. It is your duty to ensure that you make a success of it. If you do not, you cannot come back to my home".
A mother should give some form of realistic advice to children. Thankfully, the advice was heeded, and not only by me and my wife. We are blessed with six children, all of them happily married. The word "divorce" or any thought that there may be a termination of, or that the bonds of any of the six may be breached,

989
never crossed their minds. It is a cheerful family. When we come home, we are not burdened, in addition to our other cares and anxieties in a difficult and brutal world, with facing the agonies of serious strife within the family.
I perhaps do not need to remind Members of the Committee of the high degree of conscience demonstrated in this debate and of the training which we all share through the moral heritage which is ours in common. In the Ten Commandments, side by side with each other, we have the law,
"thou shalt not kill",
with,
"thou shalt not commit adultery".
We believe that there is no difference between killing a human being and killing a marriage. Therefore, in the basic set of laws that have governed the progress of our civilisation to the present day and will, I am confident, continue to do so, an association is made that should be realistically appreciated; that is, that the worst offence that can occur against the stability of the whole of society is to allow offences to be committed against oneself and one's partner that are tantamount to murder.
If we try not only to instruct our children but set an example by creating here in this Chamber the reverberation that will eventually distribute echoes into every home in this country, we may succeed ultimately in reducing the enormous weight of casualties and have homes out of which will come a new generation of youngsters proud to be part of a society which is, creative, loving and whose promises and pledges are enduring for life.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Hylton: I agree wholeheartedly with my noble friend Lord Jakobovits. He was absolutely right to emphasise the importance of preparation for marriage. He put it so well, that it is a duty which is incumbent not only on the parents in the first place, but also on the Churches as regards their own faiths and congregations.
I would like to go one small step further. We need to work out a secular equivalent of the work of believing parents and Churches which have an active and faithful membership. We need to find some method of preparing young couples who have no particular beliefs and who do not belong to any existing faith or religion. I speak with just a little experience although it is now of some years ago. In the late 1960s and early 1970s, I was involved in London in preparing engaged couples to face the rigours of the housing market as it presented itself, with all its problems, in those days. Very often we had to convince young couples who had not given the matter much thought, that it was more important to secure a lasting and potentially permanent roof over their heads rather than to buy the very latest thing in furniture or household gadgetry.
Perhaps I may move on from that to thank and welcome what the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford is proposing in Amendments Nos. 163A and 163B. The definitions of marriage support services and marriage counselling are essential to be had on the face
990
of the Bill. It may perhaps be that the particular definitions put forward in these two amendments are not absolutely perfect and are capable of improvement, but I strongly urge the importance of having adequate and satisfactory definitions of those two matters somewhere in the Bill.
I turn to Amendments Nos. 154, 162, 162A and 163 in various names. I do so because I spoke briefly last night when we were discussing reconciliation. I tried then to draw attention to the resources that undoubtedly will be required if comprehensive and national marriage support and advisory services are to exist and which will be available to all those who need them. I strongly suspect that that is not the case at the present time.
I invite the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, when he replies, to say something either on this group of amendments or possibly at a later stage, about what he considers is likely to be available in the way of resources for this very important work. In Amendment No. 163 the right reverend Prelate proposes that counselling sessions should be freely available. That is something on which perhaps there is scope for a variety of opinions. It may be that the relatively rich or reasonably affluent can afford to pay something towards the cost of the services that they will be receiving, but there can be little doubt that both the training of the personnel providing the services and their supervision while in post will be very costly exercises. Money for them will have to be found from somewhere. This is a most important group of amendments.
Lord Elton: As the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, specifically mentioned my amendment, Amendment No. 162A, which, like many other amendments which have now been discussed, falls within the next grouping, I hope that I too may graze in those pastures. It may be that my noble and learned friend will move his amendment, Amendment No. 162, and I hope that he will forgive me if I anticipate that by speaking to my amendment, which is an amendment to his. I address only the principle, not the mechanics—that is my excuse.
The noble Lord, Lord Jakobovits, made a most stirring speech in which he pointed out that the answer to the ill to be addressed lies largely outside the Bill. However, I tried in my amendment to point to an area which is relevant to this Bill and where the sense of the alarm that ought to be felt can to some extent be answered.
A year or two ago I chaired a committee of inquiry into discipline in schools, which ranged rather wide. Our attention was drawn to the apparent increase over the years in violence and disorder among pupils arriving in schools, and to research which attributed that to the children's upbringing and to the quality of the marriages in which they had been brought up. It is self-evident—is it not?—that some aspects of parenting are instinctive, but that most are learned. We observed an increasing and worrying number of children in our schools with single teenage mothers, some of whom were themselves the children of single teenage mothers. It seemed to us that there must be some way of breaking the cycle which is otherwise self-perpetuating.

991
In chapter 5 we made a couple of recommendations about what might be done. Recommendation No. 69 was that the Secretaries of State should ensure that education for parenthood was fully covered as a cross-curricular theme in the national curriculum and that governors and head teachers should ensure that education for parenthood was fully covered in a school's personal and social education programmes.
We then went beyond our brief and in Recommendation No. 70 suggested that the Government should develop a post-school education strategy aimed at promoting socially responsible parenthood. I do not think that that recommendation was ever acted on. The situation is now more urgent than it was and given that the report was well received by the Government at the time I hope that they will revisit this matter in the near future.
Although this is the Family Law Bill, the Bill is concerned primarily with proceedings for divorce. Therefore, I suppose that I should discuss first the question of preparation for marriage. Again, I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Jakobovits, that it is no good rushing to the fire with a bucket when the house has burned down; you have to take away the matches or provide a fire extinguisher in the house to start with. The first thing that we have to do is to teach people what marriage is about. Even that has an element of the classroom in it because marriage is about human relationships, one with another. In the same chapter of our report we discussed the fact that children were entering reception and nursery classes insufficiently educated within the family to be able to have. conversations or to play with their contemporaries. That is a disaster and it must be tackled. Those children will eventually become young married couples, so the problem has to be tackled in the school.
As this matter is largely still not understood or appreciated, the focus of my amendment is to ask my noble and learned friend, when he moves Amendment No. 162, to say that he will use some of the resources which he will be acquiring thereby not only for,
"research into ways of preventing marital breakdown",
but also for research into,
"preparation for marriage and preparation for parenting".
We must research how that education can be properly and effectively given. It is, as the noble Lord said, an emergency.
Baroness Faithfull: I wish to make three brief comments. First, I support the recommendations made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford. To take up a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, I am worried about finance. I am sure that my noble and learned friend must be also. I understand that Relate, for instance, charges people for its services. Will it continue charging them? I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, that those who cannot afford the service are not always receiving it at the moment.
My second point relates to accountability. I shall be moving Amendments Nos. 164 and 171 regarding the mediation service, and the whole issue of accountability; that is, supervising the training and running of the organisation.
992
The third point relates specifically to my Church. There should be somewhere, such as Leeds Castle, so that everyone who is to get married in church can spend a week on a course. That is what would probably put it on the map.
Baroness Young: I support the amendments in principle. I am sure that they are in line with what we wish to see, which is the buttressing of marriage. If public money is to go to any of these organisation we want to ensure that they are organisations which believe that marriage is what people should be in, and not one of a series of alternative lifestyles. I find the name Relate an unfortunate one because it suggests that marriage is just one of a series of alternative lifestyles. If public money is to be used we want to be sure about where it is going.
Secondly, in the discussion about schools if we are asking teachers to do this work we must bear in mind that it is a tricky business. In a school one-third of the pupils will be from broken homes. I should not like to comment about the number of staff who are divorcing. It is difficult to ask people to conduct a great many lessons in marriage. It is not an easy proposition. We must be very careful what we are saying before we leap into doing that.
Baroness Hamwee: We seem to have to have moved on to the content of Amendment No. 162 tabled by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. I wish to ask him one point which he may care to answer in response to this debate or when he moves that amendment. In proposing grants in connection with marriage support services, did he consider "family support services" as an alternative to that description? I ask that in the light of the debates the Committee has had about the importance of taking into account the position of the children of a marriage. I suspect that my concerns will be catered for by the description "marriage support services", but I should be interested to hear the noble and learned Lord's comments on support for families as well as marriage.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: We seemed to have strayed on to the next group of amendments. To save the time of the Committee I want to make a few comments about Amendment No. 71B. I agree with the principle of marriage counselling provided that the counselling is designed to save the marriage. I agree with what the noble Baroness, Lady Young, just said. It is important that that should be the objective.
I also believe it is absolutely essential that the people who undertake the counselling are not qualified simply by examination. I wish to be assured that the people who undertake it will be qualified by experience too. Experience of life is necessary in order to counsel people on keeping their marriage together. I hope that those two aspects will be borne in mind; that is, not only a professional qualification but a qualification of experience and common sense.
Finally, I greatly welcomed the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Jakobovits. I am sorry that he has been unable to speak in previous debates. I never thought that

993
I should find the message coming from the Synagogue more acceptable in many respects than that coming from the Christian Church.
9.30 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: I too welcome the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Jakobovits, in which he associated himself with the speeches that have been made in these matters by others, including those from the Bench of Bishops.
We have before us an extensive group of amendments. I shall try to deal with them as best I can in the way in which they were raised. Perhaps I may first try to deal with the group at which we are formally looking; that which begins with Amendment No. 64. I have already dealt with some of them—
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: So far as I am concerned, my noble and learned friend has dealt with that group entirely satisfactorily.
The Lord Chancellor: I am glad to know that I am giving satisfaction in some quarter as regards at least part of what I have to do. I am grateful for that. However, I have not yet had an opportunity to deal with some amendments within the group which were spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford. One or two others have not been mentioned particularly but I shall try to skate over them.
As regards Amendment No. 69 and the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, I should like to. provide a system in which the information sessions are conducted in circumstances as congenial as possible. I take account of the fact that the way in which the sessions are provided is extremely important. If the sole source of information is a provider, in my view the person needs to be extremely balanced. That is why, on the whole, I am moving towards a situation in which the various providers of services are allowed to give their own information. I believe that a video presentation may be the most effective way of doing that because they can then say what they believe they are able to provide.
As regards Amendment No. 71, the right reverend Prelate said that those attending information sessions should be offered a counselling session with an approved marriage counsellor. I intend the information sessions to include information about the marriage counselling services that are available. The word "approved" is slightly difficult for me. I anticipate that grants will be given to organisations offering such services with some system of monitoring. I wish to ensure—and I believe that I am echoing the various anxieties expressed, for example, by my noble friend Lady Young—that if public money is involved what is given is reasonably effective for the purpose for which it is given. Therefore, I would not be inclined to approve individuals in that way, or indeed organisations, except in so far as they might be awarded grants. On an award of a grant I would wish to test that they had arrangements in place to monitor the success of the operation because I would be accounting for public money.
994
The next one goes one step further and suggests that the counselling offered should be free. Obviously, I am very anxious that any resources I get are used to the best effect. Your Lordships will know this is a competition which one has to engage in yearly and quite a difficult matter it is, because the Government are faced with so many priorities. Many people who would wish t6 have counselling are quite able to pay for it; therefore I do not think that it should be a condition written into the Bill that the counselling session should be free.
There is another consideration. The noble Lord, Lord Jakobovits, mentioned most effectively the need to take action early. If it was the case that the counselling session before a divorce process—the one which I am able, as it were, to have some control over—was to be free, whereas the counselling sessions one was able to get earlier had to be paid for, that would put rather an unpleasant emphasis on the later ones. On the whole, if I had enough money, which is always a big question, I would prefer to encourage people to go early by making the earlier sessions free and the later ones perhaps not so free, because if the people did not come until awfully late it becomes more difficult and so perhaps the counselling should be made more costly. However, the point is that it would be an undue restraint on the need to use the money effectively.
The next amendment that I need to deal with is Amendment No. 73. It is associated with one or two other matters. Regarding the requirement to make regulations which shall deal with various matters, that I think is a matter of form. What one puts into it—and my noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale has from time to time commented on that type of power—are the two essentials really. These are the need to prescribe time and place and so on, and also the need to give information in writing. I think that information packs, as well as direct personal information, are wise things to have because experience shows that a combination of these is often the most effective step.
The identification, qualification and responsibilities of an accredited information provider might well arise. If I am able to have the actual attendant more or less a formal person, obviously that would not be necessary with a video and some formal attendance. But I would certainly think it most important to ensure that the arrangements for the provision of information is effective and responsible.
Turning to Amendment No. 79, in this section "relevant information" means information about the benefits of marriage counselling, about the emotional, psychological, financial and legal aspects of separation and divorce and their effect on the parties and any children of the family. Obviously, these subjects would require to be covered and also, for example, the availability and nature of legal services, advice, representation and so on, together with various other possible services as well as marriage counselling that might be relevant.
I have no quarrel at all with the need to consult. I would not make regulations in this kind of area without wide consultation and I think it would be right for me here, since the consultation point is mentioned, to

995
acknowledge the terrific help I have received personally from a great range of organisations, not least from all the Churches in addition to many other organisations. The noble Lord, Lord Jakobovits, has been very kind to me in giving me the benefit of his advice at various stages. I have had from many sources almost more advice than I could cope with, but I value it all. Of course it is not all to the same effect, I might say, and there is no unanimity of advice. There is a degree of variety, and indeed great variety, and I should like to acknowledge the help I have had from that.
I do not believe that we have had particular reference to Amendment No. 140, which is tabled in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell. However, we did take account of it in our earlier discussion on the form of the information sessions. Obviously, I would want to take account of the substance of that amendment and the way that I would try to handle such a matter.
I now turn to the second group of amendments. I do so because I believe that practically all of them have now been referred to in some way or another and it may save a little time—which is obviously at a premium—if I were to speak to them. I have already said in principle what I have to say about Amendment No. 71B, which is tabled in the name of the right reverend Prelate.
I am anxious to keep open as far as possible the nature of the organisations to which grant might be payable. Referral agencies are sometimes useful. Indeed, some of them provide help lines which can provide people with information about the various services that might be available. The ChildLine is an example of that in relation to children and there are other types of helpline available. Indeed, I might find it useful to give grants to such an organisation which might not specifically fall within the type of service under discussion. I see that the noble Baroness wishes to intervene. I give way.
Baroness Seear: As regards what the noble and learned Lord said about charging and free services, did I understand him to say that it would really in a sense be—and I do not use the words—pejoratively "means tested", and that those who could pay would pay? Alternatively, is the noble and learned Lord really saying that everyone will have to pay something? If that is the case, especially at the stage at which the divorce is pending when people are thinking very hard about how much money they will have, I believe that a great many people will decide not to have counselling if they have to pay for it. While I quite agree that earlier on in the process is a better time to take counselling, sometimes those concerned have not done so at that time and the success or otherwise of saving the marriage may depend upon such counselling. Will that facility not be available free to anyone?
The Lord Chancellor: At present, some of the organisations provide such assistance free to some people. They then have a sliding scale of charges which depends to some extent, rather in a rough way, on the financial situation of their clients. I certainly would wish to take such matters into account when considering whether grants should be made.
996
The last thing that I would want to do in the area is to have too detailed a system of regulation. I do not believe that the Government would be in a position—and, indeed, it would not be wise—to try to do so. After all, the Churches of many religious organisations which undertake marriage preparation have such a system. I would leave the responsibility for what they do to the people who have been assigned the task and take account of the nature of the arrangements that they make. For example, some organisations invite a donation. That is another way of dealing with the matter. I should like to keep the system as flexible as possible.
Baroness Elles: I have two points that I should like to raise with my noble and learned friend. They concern the information officer, so to speak, who will run the session. First, I presume that that person would merely be an administrative officer who would provide information but not give specific advice? Can my noble and learned friend give me either confirmation or denial on that point?
Secondly, such an administrator—or whoever it is—will give the information to an individual, whether it be in a group session or whatever. However, someone may come along and say: "I want to get a divorce. Can you please give me the information regarding who I should see?" After he or she has been to the information officer, presumably there is no obligation to do anything else but to make the statement? That is how I read Clause 8(2). I absolutely agree with the noble and learned Lord, and others who have spoken, about the need for marriage counselling; and, indeed, albeit at an early stage where there is property involved, about the need for legal advice as regards the children. Is it obligatory to see any of those people before making the statement? Further, how does that fall within Clause 8(2)?
If I have raised this matter at the wrong time, I apologise to my noble and learned friend—and he may like to answer later—but I think that it is very important, while we are discussing this clause, to define what the role of the information provider will be and the relationship between that provider and the person who will give the genuine advice or counselling that the party might need.
9.45 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My noble friend is right about the information provider that I have as my model, as it were. Even with that, one has to be quite careful because one can provide information with different emphases. That is why I have been rather keen, if I can, to at least have as one of the models for the trials that we will have on this aspect of the Bill a system under which the people providing the various services—the lawyers, the marriage counsellors and all the other people who may feel that they have an input to offer—are able to make their own presentation so that the emphasis, as it were, will come from the people explaining what they have. Then we will try to put it together in, perhaps, a video, or something of that kind, which contains these messages. One could have in more input personally to the editing of that than one could have a whole lot of

997
individual sessions, conducted by individuals, where you are very much in the hands of the individual as regards emphasis.
The second point is that the best that I can do is to ensure that people get all the information available about the services on offer. You cannot compel them to take any particular service—that must be a matter for them—just as you cannot compel them to do other things that you might think was in their interest. They have to see to that themselves. After all, they are people who have been married, who have gone through a marriage service in church or at a registry office. The emphasis should be that we provide them with all the information that they need, as effectively as we can, and then leave them to use it, and use it to the best advantage that they see from their point of view.
I do not think that compulsion is likely to be useful at that stage. Of course, there is power in the court to direct that people should attend and be told about mediation if, for example, in the course of the process the court feels that they are trying to litigate things before they have had a proper opportunity of considering, or have not considered fully, the advantages of doing it by mediation. That will be a power in the Bill, but, otherwise, it will be a matter best dealt with in the way I have just described.
I was just going on to mention my own amendment, Amendment No. 162, which says:
"The Lord Chancellor may, with the approval of the Treasury, make grants in connection with
"(a) the provision of marriage support services."
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, asked me whether I meant to include children in that. Yes, marriage support services include where there are children; they take account of that. I am inclined to use marriage support services rather than family support services for reasons which may already have appeared.
Paragraph (b) reads:
"research into the causes of marital breakdown."
I think this is quite important because if we are going to tackle the problem which the noble Lord, Lord Jakobovits, so forcefully drew to our attention a few moments ago, we need to look to see what is the cause of marital breakdown.
Paragraph (c) is related to research into ways of preventing marital breakdown. Many services are already in the field and dealing with these matters, and the working party, to which I have referred more than once, is looking at the extent of coverage by voluntary means of these services.
The voluntary services have a very distinguished record in this area. Many of them have raised money in difficult circumstances by their own efforts in order that they may help people who would not be able to afford the services if they had to pay the full cost. It is right for me to say also that many judges who are concerned with family cases have given of their time and effort, and I have no doubt also out of their own private pockets, to support services of that kind. That is one of the most eloquent tributes to the effectiveness of those services.
998
My noble friend Lord Elton has tabled Amendment No. 162A. There are problems about just how far that goes. I do not wish to duplicate efforts on education. The Department of Education and schools have responsibilities in that connection, and as my noble friend Lady Young said, that is a delicate area. Depending on the situation, it may be difficult to become too deeply involved.
Lord Elton: Will my noble and learned friend allow me to point out that I am merely asking for a commitment to undertake research? If my noble and learned friend's department is taking into its hands the whole issue of divorce, it seems appropriate that it should also take into its hands the question of how divorce might be prevented. Clearly, it would then fall to other departments to implement the results of the research.
The Lord Chancellor: Paragraph (c) of Amendment No. 162 refers to research into ways of preventing marital breakdown. If my noble friend is content to leave it at that, the coverage which I have been able to agree is fairly comprehensive. In so far as it may impinge on areas which should be left to others to implement, all well and good. I believe that that phrase is general in character and fairly comprehensive.
Amendment No. 163 in the name of the right reverend Prelate, which is an amendment to Amendment No. 162, returns to the question of free counselling, which I have already dealt with.
I am not keen to use the specific phrase "marriage support services" as suggested in Amendment No. I 63A because, as I mentioned, there may be aspects which would not fall strictly under any of the headings and yet would be useful in connection with supporting marriage.
In addition, we have to hope that the Bill will last for some time and that other possible services may be developed in the future arising out of the research referred to in paragraphs (b) and (c) of Amendment No. 162. I have no doubt that marriage counselling requires training and supervision. Those aspects would be covered in relation to any grants that would be payable to a particular organisation.
I hope that I have dealt, albeit briefly, with all the matters that have been raised in these two groupings. Subject to what I have tried to say, I certainly wish to take account of them as we go forward.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: Before the noble and learned Lord sits down, perhaps I may ask him one short question to save him making another speech. In Amendment No. 162 he refers to research into the causes of marital breakdown and research into ways of preventing marital breakdown. Will those items take into account a wide range of influences, including, for example, the taxation and social security systems in so far as they may militate against marriage?
The Lord Chancellor: The heading of research into the causes of marital breakdown is a very general one. It would certainly be right to take account of any factor

999
which appears to contribute to marital breakdown. One would have to take account of what action was available to try to cope with the matter.
I do not wish to extend this discussion too much. However, one of the practical questions is: at what times, at what stages in the marriage, are these crises most apt to occur? One seeks to develop services and to make clear the availability of services at those critical points—I have no doubt the earlier the better. That is why I am anxious that the work of our interdepartmental group which has produced the work so far is encouraged.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: We have again had a most important debate on a most important aspect of the Bill. There have been a number of remarkably fine speeches in the course of the debate. I hope that it is not invidious if I mention in particular the speech of my noble friend Lord Jakobovits. I presume to say that I entirely agree with everything he said. Subject to one very small reservation, I also agree with what was said by the right reverend Prelate. I might as well get that reservation off my chest. He proposed an amendment enjoining the Lord Chancellor to consult the agencies before making regulations. I am sorry to say that my noble and learned friend was altogether too indulgent to that suggestion. I am very much against cluttering up the statute book with injunctions to Ministers to do what they would do anyway. I know that the Opposition naturally regard all Ministers as morons. We do not take so jaundiced a view on the Cross-Benches. I think it is a pity when the statute book is already too prolix and expensive to put. in quite unnecessary injunctions.
We had a most helpful reply by my noble and learned friend. On the three amendments that I proposed his reply was entirely satisfactory. He told us the sort of circumstances where he had considered liberty to prescribe necessary. Having declared them, all his actions under that head would be construed in the light of what he told the Committee. In the technical language of draftsmanship, they would be construed ejusdem generis; and I thought that that was entirely satisfactory.
The major subject on which I wished to comment on the subsequent amendment related to the charging for services. I assume that there would be no charge for the interview. I hope that I shall be corrected if I am wrong.
So far as concerns counselling, when I invoked the assistance of the National Marriage Guidance Council and its Roman Catholic and Jewish equivalents to supplement the work of the welfare officers of the court, whose function was mainly mediatory and mainly relating to children, my impression was that they did not charge although they were grateful for contributions from those whom they had helped.
Naturally, I tend to take a pro-Treasury view, but we are concerned with a fundamental institution of society. It seems to me entirely worth while devoting funds—even at the expense of other worth-while projects—to assisting people who have got into the trouble which the Committee has been contemplating. I therefore hope that, whatever happens about mediation, everything covered by counselling is not charged for. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
1000
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10 p.m.
[Amendments Nos. 65 to 80 not moved.]
Clause 8 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 81 not moved.]
Clause 9 [Arrangements for the future]:
Lord Archer of Sandwell Lord Archer of Sandwell moved Amendment No. 82:
Page 5, line 15, leave out ("One of').
The noble and learned Lord said: There always comes an end to progress of the kind we have just made. Yesterday, in introducing Amendment No. 10, I listed the other amendments which it was suggested the Committee might find convenient to debate in the group. I said that I had spared the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, an unnecessary intervention. She subsequently took me to task, pointing out that she never made unnecessary interventions. I fully accept that rebuke. I meant, of course, that I had spared her the necessity of an intervention. However, I may possibly welcome her guidance at this stage, if only by an approving nod. With Amendment No. 82, the Committee may find it convenient to debate Amendments Nos. 83 and 86. The next group on the Marshalled List is Amendments Nos. 84 and 89 which relate to precisely the same matter. If I am in order, I suggest that the Committee may care to debate the two groups together. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, for the approving nod.
Clause 9 seeks to ensure that before a divorce is granted the court is satisfied that proper financial arrangements have been negotiated between the parties or that the court has adjudicated on them. As was pointed out to the Committee yesterday, that provision appears to fly in the face of the Law Commission's original proposals. It was said that it might lead to hasty and ill-considered arrangements designed simply to facilitate the obtaining of a divorce order; alternatively, that it may lead to unnecessary subsequent applications to the court. I heard what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said about that and I do not believe that this is the occasion to debate the issue.
The amendments go to a rather different matter. In the present state of the Bill the court may be presented with negotiated arrangements obtained simply, without a vulnerable partner or, indeed, without either partner having the benefit of legal advice. Normally, in matrimonial matters the proper way to approach it is for full disclosure to be made by both parties of their financial positions and any other relevant information, the taking of advice as to the various options for achieving a just division and a formal agreement that takes account of the various provisions and future eventualities.
Of course, the parties will have the benefit of mediation. With a competent mediator that may he sufficient in many cases, but it is not difficult to envisage a situation where their property and financial affairs are complicated, or one party is not disposed to reach a reasonable settlement or attempts to foreclose

1001
the options by disposing of the assets. In that situation negotiations may take place, if at all, very much at arms length. There may be a need not just for a single mediator but for legal advice to be provided separately to each of the parties.
In such a case, if a fair result is to be achieved—one that both parties will accept and neither party will afterwards regret—any attempt at settlement will require access to legal advice. That assumes that legal aid is available to both parties in order that they can take advice. As I understood what the noble and learned Lord said yesterday and also today, legal advice would be available to both parties and the mediator would know when it was necessary for either party to be referred for legal advice. I assume it must entail that when necessary legal aid will be available. The noble and learned Lord appears to assent to that proposition. If so, I can spare your Lordships a great deal of time.
The Lord Chancellor: That is so, as long as the parties qualify in financial terms for legal aid. Where legal advice is necessary the Legal Aid Fund at present has the opportunity to provide it, and that will continue.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord. Of course, I accept the condition that they otherwise qualify for legal aid. If that is so, I can probably spare your Lordships a great deal of time. What has occasioned some hesitation on this side of the Committee is Clause 24. Clearly, that envisages that there will be regulations. The noble and learned Lord must have some idea of what he proposes to put into those regulations, but if the effect of them is that those who otherwise qualify for and require legal aid for this purpose have it, the difficulties are assuaged and I do not need specifically to move this amendment. I am most grateful to leave it there.
The Lord Chancellor: Before the noble and learned Lord sits down, perhaps I may answer the point. The purpose of the later clauses which deal with mediation is to extend the remit of the Legal Aid Board to permit it to finance mediation. We have a clause that gives a degree of emphasis to mediation. However, the general principles of the Legal Aid Act, and the references in that Act to legal advice and representation, are not affected. It is an extension of the scope of legal aid. As everyone knows, I have proposals for a more radical reform of legal aid, but so far as this Bill is concerned the present Legal Aid Act applies. What I seek to do is to extend the scope of it to include the funding of mediation, with a principle in favour of mediation where that is appropriate.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his intervention. If Clause 24 is not intended to do more than that and to emphasise that in the first instance mediation must be the sensible option, I for one am content. However, for the purposes of this debate I beg to move.
Baroness Faithfull: As a patron of the mediation service, I should like to make just one short point. Questions have been asked about the legal position on
1002
advice given by mediators. A husband and wife who seek the services of the mediation service work out between them the legal position with regard to property, money and so on. All the cases that the mediation service work out with the family are advised to go to a solicitor to find out whether the arrangement is satisfactory. Some research was done and it was found that out of 100 cases that went to a solicitor, in only four cases did the solicitor say that it was not quite right. The other 96 cases were quite correct. The mediation service advises everybody to go to a solicitor after they have been to the mediation service to ensure that the legal position is correct.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: I am most grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull. That reinforces the rather cheerful frame of mind in which I found myself at the end of the intervention of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. In that situation, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 83 to 86 not moved.]
Lord Simon of Glaisdale Lord Simon of Glaisdale moved Amendment No. 88:
Page 5, line 22, at end insert ("and").
The noble and learned Lord said: I am not sure whether Amendment No. 85 was moved. There is a group of my amendments which is grouped with that one. I do not know why, except that they might all be drafting amendments. The amendments to which I want to speak are Amendments Nos. 88, 94, 156, 157 and 168.
Lord Elton: Will the noble and learned Lord tell us whether he is speaking to Amendment No. 85, which I thought had been dealt with together with Amendment No. 11 yesterday, or is he speaking to another amendment whose number I did not catch?
Lord Meston: I can clarify the position. I spoke to Amendment No. 85 yesterday.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: Amendment No. 85 was called and a series of my amendments are grouped with it. I wish to speak to my amendment and I have indicated those which I consider ought to be grouped with it. I am generally in the hands of the noble Baroness when it comes to grouping but I hope that on this occasion she will not stop me from speaking.
My point is a very small drafting point that I can put quite shortly and without troubling the Committee to look at the Bill. This is a well drafted Bill and therefore I feel confident in asking for this point to be considered. It arises in those circumstances where one has, say, paragraph (a), paragraph (b) and paragraph (c). The style of draftmanship at the moment is strictly grammatical. The wording is:
"(a) … (b) … or (c)".
or:
"(a) … (b) … and (c)".
One has to look back from the last to see what is intended at the beginning. That is particularly inconvenient when the last paragraph is over the page. In each case I have put in "or" after "(a)" where it is disjunctive and "and" after "(a)" wherever it is

1003
conjunctive. All I ask is that if my noble and learned friend considers that there is anything in the point he will ask the draftsman to discuss it with his colleagues. I beg to move.
10.15 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: The answer is yes. We have not yet reached Amendment No. 88 and Amendment No. 85 has not been moved. But the answer is yes and I hope that that may satisfy my noble and learned friend.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I suppose I am entitled to say thank you and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 87:
Page 5, line 21, leave out from ("parties") to ("and") in line 25 and insert ("(to which no objection has been notified to the court by the other party) that—

(i) he has no significant assets and does not intend to make an application for financial provision;

(ii) he believes that the other party has no significant assets and does not intend to make an application for financial provision;").

The noble and learned Lord said: I spoke to Amendment No. 87 earlier and will consider the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Meston, in relation to it. However, I felt it right to include it as it was intimated to be a government amendment. That does not preclude further consideration of the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Meston, yesterday. I beg to move.
Lord Meston: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for that indication. It occurred to me also that some provision should be made for those declarations to be in some way scrutinised by the courts. I am concerned about the provision and the possibility that it may be misused. The bare declaration of one or indeed both parties that there are no significant assets and the statement that it is not believed that the other party intends to apply to the court is something which the court should look at with some care.
The Lord Chancellor: Those documents are before the court as a prerequisite of making a divorce order. The court will therefore have a chance to look at them. I do not know whether the noble Lord has any other specific point in mind. The intention is that the court will have the documents as part of the fundamental jurisdiction to grant the divorce order. If there is anything sinister about the documents or something appears to be wrong, I shall expect the court to take account of that.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Cox): Amendment No. 88 was pre-empted by Amendment No. 87.
[Amendments Nos. 89 to 95 not moved.]
On Question, Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.
[Amendment No. 96 not moved.]
Clause 10 [Hardship: orders preventing divorce.]
1004
[Amendment No. 97 not moved.]
Lord Meston Lord Meston moved Amendment No. 98:
Page 5, line 41, leave out ("the other") and insert ("either").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 98 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 103, 110, 111 and 117. These amendments are the first which take us into Clause 10.
Earlier today the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor pointed to the potential use of Clause 10 to protect those who do not consent to divorce in special circumstances. Amendments Nos. 98, 103, 110, 111 and 117 are drafted to deal with the problem of those for whom a secular divorce does not terminate the marriage in the eyes of their specific religious group and for whom a religious divorce may also be required. As I understand it, this is a particular problem in Islamic and Jewish law. The arguments were rehearsed briefly by myself and more fully by the noble Lord, Lord Jakobovits, at Second Reading. I hope that it is only necessary to repeat them briefly.
It is perhaps important to appreciate two points, which I understand to be common to both Moslem and Jewish marriage law. First, the observant cannot remarry without a religious divorce; a secular divorce is not enough in the eyes of their particular faiths. Secondly, in both cases it is only the husband who can initiate the procedure and therefore, by that very fact, the wife is at some disadvantage. The result in practice is that the husband's willingness to initiate the procedure becomes a bargaining counter in the financial proceedings. I can tell the Committee from experience, acting for Jewish clients, of long sojourns outside the door of the court, wandering up and down the corridor, negotiating in effect the price to be paid for the husband to initiate the GET procedure. Therefore, it seems necessary in this Bill to take the opportunity to right what many regard as an injustice. It will enable a true, clean break to be achieved and both the parties to have the right to remarry according to their religious beliefs. It gives the wife in particular the right to negotiate on equal terms.
Apart from the practical problems which I have described and my experience of it in practice—and I know of other matrimonial practitioners who have experienced the same, one can almost say week in and week out—very recently there has been a clear and scholarly analysis of the problem in a book entitled Family Law and Religion by Carolyn Hamilton. Reading that book I realised that this problem was before Parliament only recently in the sense that a provision was introduced for consideration by another place in 1984 as an amendment to what was then the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Bill. The amendment was introduced to aid both Moslems and Jews in obtaining a religious divorce, but apparently the amendment was withdrawn because the Government, in the form of the then Solicitor-General, suggested that the provision was not suitably drafted for introduction into that particular Bill. It was suggested that consultation would follow with the relevant religious bodies and that the issue would be reviewed by the Government for future action.
I do not know what has happened as regards the Government in the intervening 10 or 11 years, but I can say that the way in which these amendments have been brought back before Parliament show that considerable care has been taken in their drafting. I hope that an opportunity can now be taken to address the imbalance which I suggest exists for certain categories of people. I beg to move.
Lord Jakobovits: I indicated in my speech at Second Reading that an amendment would be moved to try to overcome what has proved to be a very grave cause of distress and therefore should invoke the hardship bar in a very specific way. During our detailed discussion of the Bill I intimated that an amendment to that effect would be moved in Committee. I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Meston, for having drafted as well as presented this amendment. We have consulted a number of other legal, rabbinical and communal experts to whom we are immensely grateful for their efforts to find a solution to what is at present still an agonising problem.
The need for this amendment arises from a strange anomaly in the law as it stands. The Marriage Act 1836, followed by all subsequent Acts, right up to the latest one in 1949, includes the following provision:
"The Society of Friends, commonly called Quakers, and also persons professing the Jewish religion, may continue to contract and solemnise marriages according to [their] usages; and every such marriage is hereby declared and confirmed good in law, provided that the parties … be both of the said society or both persons professing the Jewish religion respectively; provided also that notice to the registrar shall have been given".
That is the wording of a law that has now existed for over a century and a half.
In other words, the civil law expressly recognises a synagogue marriage as legally valid, and no separate civil marriage is required, such as is required in some other countries, for example, in France where I was married and where I had to go through a separate civil marriage ceremony in the Mairie or the town hall. Here, the state accepts the synagogue ceremony as constituting both the religious and the civil bond between the parties.
Yet in dissolving that dual bond by divorce, the law requires only the civil contract to be revoked while leaving the religious bond intact. If thereafter one of the parties remarries, content with just a civil divorce, the other spouse, who may regard the religious marriage as still valid, cannot remarry until a religious divorce is obtained; and if the first party refuses that, the second may remain what we called "chained"—that is, tied in a limping marriage, unable to be released until the religious bond is severed. That can lead to either lifelong loneliness or to blackmail and extortion.
That situation can affect either spouse since the termination of the religious bond requires the consent of both, just as the marriage contract can be established only with the agreement of both sides. In fact, I am informed by the Jewish authorities dealing with that situation in this country that at present about one-third of the "chained" spouses are men and that two-thirds are women.
1006
The law in question is not ordained by rabbis, but is biblical. The relevant verse, verse 2 of chapter 24 of the Book of Deuteronomy, reads:
"and he shall write for her a deed of divorcement and give it in her hand",
and no rabbi is authorised to cancel or to override any biblical law; nor can a contract in principle be terminated except by the parties who established it.
The problem is not due to any anomalies in Jewish law. Were we to have exclusive jurisdiction in matrimonial matters, there would be no difficulty since, in general, we would merely refuse to administer a divorce which does not enable both parties to remarry. It is hoped therefore that the proposed amendment will achieve that amelioration of unspeakable hardship occasionally resulting from the law as it stands.
Finally, the Committee may be interested to know that similar legislation has recently been introduced in several other countries and states, such as the USA, Canada, South Africa and Australia.
10.30 p.m.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: Since I adverted to this matter on Second Reading, I intervene merely to say that I support every word that has come from the noble Lords, Lord Meston and Lord Jakobovits. I think that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor indicated on Second Reading some sympathy with what was said on this issue. I therefore do not propose to trouble the Committee further.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My recollection of the history of matrimonial law is that marriages of Jews and Quakers have always been outside the main code. They were exceptions when all marriages had to be in a church or chapel of the Church of England. They remained outside when, in 1836, marriages in register offices were recognised. They were always exceptional. It seems to me that an exceptional case has been made out here.
Baroness Hamwee: I have three amendments in this group. I do not intend to move Amendment No. 101 which, in drafting, was linked with amendments we debated and disposed of earlier.
I hope that does not detract from the serious points on this clause which have been made and with which I associate myself. Amendments Nos.111A and 114A have been tabled merely to explore the difference in wording between subsections (2) and (3). In one case there is a reference to the "dissolution of the marriage" and "the marriage to be dissolved", and in the other to "dissolving the marriage" and "to dissolve the marriage". They are different words. I am interested to know the difference imported by them.
Baroness Young: I thought that it might be for the convenience of the Committee were I to speak to my amendments which are grouped with Amendment No. 98; that is to say, Amendments Nos. 99, 104, 106, 108 and 115. This is an important group of amendments. The amendments deal with the hardship bar. Of course the present law includes special safeguards in the case

1007
of an innocent spouse who does not want a divorce: first, five years' separation; and, secondly, there is a bar where there would be grave financial or other hardship, and where, as I understand it, in all the circumstances it would be wrong to dissolve the marriage.
As I understand it, some 6 per cent. of divorces are granted on the basis of a five-year separation, but in 25 years the hardship bar has been accepted only once, and that was based on grave hardship. There have been few reported cases on financial hardship. The purpose of all the amendments is to strengthen the bar and to help resolve the situation.
I have received advice from Dr. Cretney of All Souls College, Oxford who has written to me to explain why the hardship bar has not operated. I am sure that my noble and learned friend will be well aware of the legal reasons.
It is so important that the hardship bar should work arid help that I have tabled this series of amendments. I support the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, which covers the same point. My Amendment No. 99 gives a safeguard to a spouse who does not consent to a divorce. On application to the court an order can be made preventing a divorce for a period of two years. Amendments Nos. 104 and 105 bar on grounds of grave hardship to the children of the marriage. Amendment No. 108 extends the hardship bar, taking in the welfare to children. It also bars divorce on the basis of conduct, loss of financial benefits or impediment to a career. Amendment No. 115 substantially strengthens the hardship bar. The proposed subsection (3)(a) sets out the circumstances in which a divorce could be barred. Those circumstances are where a divorce would be prejudicial to the interests of children; where one spouse suffers from ill-health or disability or injury; where divorce would be contrary to the religious beliefs of one of the parties to the marriage; and where one of the parties seeks a further period of conciliation.
At this late hour I will not go at length into all of those matters but I hope that my noble and learned friend will consider them. I believe that this is a most important part of the Bill which, apparently, has been previously inoperative. There are a number of amendments, none of which may be quite right. I believe that the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, covers the same point. It would be helpful if my noble and learned friend were prepared to look at the appropriate safeguard to put into this part of the Bill.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: I believe that it comes naturally within this rag-bag of amendments, if I may put it that way, for me to speak to Amendment No. 102, which stands in my name, immediately after the noble Baroness, Lady Young, has spoken to the amendments standing in her name. Even at this late hour it gives me particular pleasure to be able to make what I regard as substantial common cause with her on this issue. I certainly join with her in inviting the noble and learned Lord to consider the way in which the hardship
1008
provisions currently work. The purpose of my amendment is to make a specific proposal in that regard with a view to strengthening them.
As I have indicated, I do not shrink from the proposition that divorce should be made harder to obtain where justice requires that to be so. What I have suggested in Amendment No. 102 is the taking out from the current Bill of the statutory language indicated and the insertion of the new language:
"significant detriment to the welfare of any child of the family; or … serious prejudice to the other party".
The noble and learned Lord may say that that is to no purpose because the same position obtains under the present law—that is to say, under the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973. The words which I suggest should be taken out of Clause 10(2)(a) and replaced by the words in this amendment are the very language of the present statute. I am suggesting the removal of the language of the present statute.
However, I believe that my intelligence is the same on this subject as that of the noble Baroness, Lady Young. I invite the noble and learned Lord to consider that that might be precisely the mischief that needs to be eradicated. It is the mischief in the current statutory provision, the current statutory language, which is carried into the Bill. All the intelligence that I have is that the current statutory language has proved to be something of a dead letter.
If I may remind the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, who I am sure needs no reminding, of what he has said on any previous occasion in our discussions on this Bill, he observed on Second Reading (at col. 748 of Hansard) that it is only once since 1970 that the court has invoked that statutory provision and has withheld divorce on that ground. There may be a very small number of examples, but I understand them to be infinitesimal. What the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, said on Second Reading accords with what family law practitioners have told me.
Basically, the courts have construed the present hardship provisions on the basis of asserting a public interest in dissolving marriages which have become an empty shell and have in effect disregarded grave financial hardship as a ground for not dissolving marriage. In Mathias in the Court of Appeal, a woman argued that her marriage should not be dissolved because she would lose an army and a state widow's pension. The Court of Appeal held that there was a public interest in dissolving marriages which had become an empty shell and that the prejudice she alleged did not qualify as "grave financial hardship". Therefore the purpose of this amendment is simply to offer a suggestion to the noble and learned Lord for his consideration.
The primary provision in the Bill is that concluded arrangements for the future must be in place before the court can order divorce. That is Clause 2(1)(c). The arrangements are those set out in Clause 9 but that is wisely made subject to exceptions in Clause 9 (5), and the relevant exception is at page 38 in Schedule 1 at paragraph 2(d). It is from that language that I am borrowing for the suggestion that I make in this

1009
amendment. Even although there are no concluded financial arrangements after the expiry of the year for reflection and consideration, still the court may grant a decree if a delay in granting a decree either,
"would be significantly detrimental to the welfare of any child of the family,"—
I think that accords with one of Lady Young's concerns—or,
"would be seriously prejudicial to the applicant".
That is the criterion for overriding the basic requirement that no divorce should be granted until financial arrangements are concluded.
The suggestion that I offer the noble and learned Lord, since my intelligence accords with that of the noble Baroness, Lady Young, that the current provision has become something of a dead letter, is that we should adopt as the relevant criterion for denying a divorce after expiry of one year the same criterion as I have described for overriding the basic requirement that no divorce should be granted until financial arrangements are concluded; namely, the detriment to a child or prejudice to the other party.
The reason for incorporating the language of Schedule 1, paragraph 2(d) into Clause 10(2)(a) in substitution for the existing statutory language is that Parliament should make its will plain to the judges; namely, that it desires the same test to be applied in these undoubtedly exceptional but cognate situations. That is, the criterion which the Bill lays down for permitting a divorce to go through after expiry of the year for reflection and consideration although financial arrangements are not in place. The criterion is the prevention of detriment to the welfare of a child or prejudice to an applicant. That likewise should be the criterion for withholding a divorce although the year has expired. Again, in that situation, the criterion should be the prevention of detriment to the welfare of the child or prejudice to the other party. All the intelligence that I have received is that the previous statutory formula does not achieve its intended effect in practice. Therefore, I offer the suggestion that I have just explained to the noble and learned Lord.
10.45 p.m.
Baroness Elles: In view of what the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, and indeed my noble friend Lady Young have said, perhaps I may speak briefly to Amendment No. 115A which is tabled in my name. I believe that there is very little difference between us. My amendment very much accords with the views expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, earlier this afternoon. He said that there would be certain special considerations which could be dealt with in Clause 10, especially in those cases where one of the parties did not consent to a decree of divorce.
As the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, and my noble friend Lady Young have indicated, there are certain justifiable reasons which could be taken into account by the court whereby discretion could be used to decide whether there should be a decree preventing the order
1010
of divorce or, alternatively—following Clause 10(3)—whether there should be an application for the cancellation of an order preventing a decree of divorce.
My amendment does not seek to delete those provisions in subsections (2) and (3), but proposes to add to the clause the provision that,
"For the purposes of subsections (2) and (3)",
certain circumstances should be included and taken into consideration. They are not exhaustive, but they could be included. The first is,
"the welfare of the children of the marriage",
to which the noble Lord, Lord Irvine, has already referred. I have then included,
"the conduct of the parties",
where there might be specific circumstances. Again, I shall not go into detail tonight because I think such matters have been fully discussed during the course of our debates. However, that really refers to the kind of thing where it would be very harmful either for the children, or impossible for one of the parties, to go through a divorce at that particular time. Finally, I have inserted the consideration of,
"the loss of any financial benefit, or benefit in kind".
One could perhaps imagine a situation where someone is taking a course of education in order to further a career and the prospect of a divorce at that particular time could, in fact, damage the possibility of that person continuing for, say, three months, six months or whatever it might be. Such a provision would allow for a decree to be delayed.
I referred to the question yesterday of whether it is better for children to be in a home of high conflict rather than be in a one-parent family or with step-parents. In that respect, I have added a rider to my amendment that,
"in the absence of clear evidence to the contrary by [them] remaining under the care … and control within the marriage of their two natural parents".
Of course, that provision would not be enforced. However, it would be something that the court could take into consideration where it is clear that the children would benefit and prefer to be with their parents; and, indeed, where the parents could come to an agreement at that stage of the proceedings. It is not an obligatory condition; it is a provision that the court would be free to take into account.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: Now that it is clear that we are debating all the amendments in the group, perhaps I may speak again and say a few words about Amendment No. 116, which is tabled in my name. I believe that I can spare the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor some trouble in that respect. The amendment was tabled in consequence of what I am now satisfied was a misconstruction of the Bill. It was designed to put right a problem which does not exist.
Lord Hylton: I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Meston, and to my noble friend Lord Jakobovits speaking to their series of amendments with considerable sympathy. That was somewhat increased by the memory of a conversation that I had in Jerusalem nearly four years ago with a distinguished member of

1011
the Parliament of Israel who is now a Minister in the present government. She explained to me the extreme difficulties that arise in Israel over the status of women.
Well, be that as it may, perhaps I may, as a complete layman in such matters and in no way a practitioner in such difficult areas, ask the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor whether he will deal with the following question in his reply to the debate. In the event of the amendments in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Meston, and my noble friend Lord Jakobovits being accepted, can the noble and learned Lord say whether they would be undermined, and the ground cut from underneath them, by the series of amendments to which the noble Baroness, Lady Young, spoke?
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I speak to my Amendment No. 100 which seeks to leave out the word "grave". The background was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, referring to my speech on Second Reading.
We now have divorce by unilateral repudiation on one year's notice. As I ventured to argue on Second Reading and earlier in this Committee, that is inherently liable to cause injustice to married women. A married woman in the situation described in the passage I cited from David Morrisey's book might well have—many have—sacrificed herself in the interests of her children, aged herself by bearing children and allowed her husband thereby to go out, to his economic advantage. Then, when he turned to somebody else—because his original passion faded and he was renewing it with somebody else—he could cast off his first wife. That is obviously a situation of injustice.
The provision in the Bill came into the law for the first time in 1969 in reference to divorce after five years separation. The sort of argument I put forward, and which has been put forward elsewhere in the debate, was then raised. The object of the 1969 Act was to facilitate divorce, in which it certainly succeeded. Therefore there was stern resistance to the removal of the word "grave" before "hardship" with the result that has been explained. It has been virtually a dead letter. Even financial hardship has been hardly used.
The situation is far more serious now where there is unilateral repudiation not after five years but after one year has elapsed from notice.
My amendment merely omits the word "grave". One asks why should any woman who has committed no fault at all but merely ceased to find favour in her husband's eyes—a husband who has preferred to cast his favours on another—be expected to suffer hardship before he is allowed to go on his way?
I prefer the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, to which she has spoken. That amendment refers to "financial prejudice". Although I am attracted by the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Irvine, I believe that the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness is preferable.
The test of hardship is an unsatisfactory one. It appeared in the Matrimonial Causes Act 1937—Herbert's Act—to which I referred earlier, which barred divorce for the first three years of the marriage.
1012
However, there was an exception for exceptional hardship and depravity. That was extraordinarily difficult to construe. Parties tended to dress up the evidence so that the hardship did appear to be exceptional, and the depravity was similarly dressed up.
The test proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, is very much easier for the court. Although it is true that judges are not paid to make easy decisions, they are more likely to be right when all that is required is a balance of financial advantage and disadvantage.
I have said that I shall move none of my amendments, but I shall be grateful for the comments of my noble and learned friend.
11 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: This is a very important and rather varied group of amendments, but I shall not use the phrase that the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, used about them.
I regard Amendments Nos. 111A and 114A in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, which are drafting amendments, as improvements on the Bill and am happy to accept them. Therefore, when we reach them I shall be happy for the noble Baroness to move them and I shall advise the Committee to accept them.
I should like to have an opportunity to consider all of the other amendments. There are groups of subject matters. The subject matter of children is an important one. I want to take this opportunity to offer the Committee a very full account of the literature on children and divorce which I have had available to me. Since it is a comprehensive list of the literature it would be inadvisable for me to read it out now. Therefore, I shall offer a copy of the list to any Member of the Committee who asks me for it, either now or later, and I propose to place a copy in the Library.
At the invitation of my noble friend Lord Coleraine, I read from The Exeter Family Study earlier. One could read the whole report with profit, but there is a passage on page 54 relating to conflict which I should like to mention expressly. It states that,
"parental conflict has proved to have by far the closest association with any difficulties experienced by children. The general conclusion to be drawn from a review of this literature is that high levels of conflict…are closely associated with poorer outcomes for children. Some studies have shown that measurable behavioural difficulties can be identified in high conflict families before the breakdown of the marriage, and may even largely explain any later effects of family disruption".
Obviously I shall consider all the amendments carefully. It is important to consider whether practical advantage will accrue to the children by postponement of the order of divorce. I think that the positive question is the best way of looking at the matter. If we are going to go down the road of allowing the court, under Clause 10, to refuse a divorce in relation to the welfare of the children, it should be by seeking to identify a positive benefit which is likely to accrue to the children by the postponement of the order. To a certain extent, any such order is bound to have some adverse effect. The question is: can that be ameliorated to any extent by postponing its grant?

1013
I am content to consider the amendments as regards financial matters. I am anxious because I know that when one introduces a new phrase into the law it takes quite a long time before a settled interpretation is reached. Sometimes these matters arrive at your Lordships' House and, just occasionally, your Lordships' House having reconsidered what it said before may find it possible to improve upon its previous interpretation. Therefore I am not anxious, if I can avoid it, to introduce new phrases into the law. On the other hand, there has been some reference to phrases already in the Bill which could be used, and therefore it may be that some ultimate economy could be achieved by using one of those rather than having a variety of different phrases in different places in the Bill.
As regards the amendments moved by the noble Lord, Lord Meston, the noble Lord, Lord Jakobovits, and associated with the name of my noble friend Lady Young, this is a difficult matter. The reference is to impediments in the substantive amendment which states:
"For the purposes of this section, where one party's ability to remarry will be materially impeded as a result of the other party's failure to remove all barriers to remarriage",
and so on. Obviously these are not impediments or barriers created by the general law. They are barriers of another type. I have been familiar with this problem almost from the time that I became Lord Chancellor and the noble Lord, Lord Jakobovits, came to see me about it; and I have received representations and have had meetings with a number of those concerned with these matters, including the noble Lord, Lord Meston, the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, and others. Many have suggested to me more specific amendments. This is a carefully and very generally drafted amendment which in some ways makes it easier to consider incorporating it in the Bill because it does not refer to any specific difficulties.
Members of the Committee will appreciate that I am anxious not to create unnecessary litigation. One of the purposes of the Bill is to do what we can to reduce the risks to the relationship of parents with both their children as a result of divorce, and unnecessary litigation would be in conflict with that principle. Therefore I am anxious that if this hardship clause, the Clause 10 power—I call it that; it may be effected differently if one takes some of the amendments instead of the provision as drafted—is too wide, we may have absolutely unnecessary litigation. There is no point in simplifying one part of the system in order to produce complications in another. Subject to that, I shall consider the amendments carefully. That may be sufficient for present purposes.
Lord Hylton: Perhaps I may invite the noble and learned Lord to comment on the interaction between the amendments of the noble Baroness, Lady Young, and those spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Meston, and my noble and learned friend.
The Lord Chancellor: I do not see any conflict between them in principle. The precise drafting may
1014
need to be examined, there is a degree of overlap between some, but in principle the kind of difficulty addressed by the amendment of the noble Lords, Lord Meston and Lord Jakobovits, is of a different character from the difficulties addressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, in her amendment as well as those of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord Irvine, about financial prejudice. There is another head relating to children and all three could be operated independently or all together, depending on the court's view of the matter. I see no conflict in principle between the court having power in respect of any one or more of the three heads to examine the possibility of postponing the grant of an order of divorce in the circumstances envisaged.
Lord Meston: I agree with the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor on the point. I see no problem in the interaction, if there is any, between the various amendments. As he said, there is a measure of overlap in that Amendment No. 108 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Young, incorporates the specific point about a religious divorce which is more specifically covered in the amendment which I first introduced.
As I understand the indications from the noble and learned Lord, he appreciates and is already aware of the difficulties. The barriers to which he referred and which I sought to address in the first amendment in the group are barriers of serious concern affecting the parties before the court. In my submission, it is incumbent on the court, if at all possible, to seek to help the parties to work round or over the barriers.
The Lord Chancellor: Before the noble Lord proceeds, could he help me on whether anything other than religious barriers of the kind we have been discussing could come under the head of his amendment? I have been considering that, so far without much constructive result. He may have thought about it and be able to help me because it is a difficult area.
Lord Meston: I have to say that it never occurred to me that it would control—if that is the correct word—anything other than religious barriers to a remarriage in the circumstances that I indicated in my opening remarks. I shall look again at the wording in case there is a problem, but I cannot foresee one.
As regards the other amendments, it is perhaps not for me to say more. I should have mentioned that Amendment No. 111 is purely a drafting amendment designed to give the court a power to cancel an order which the Bill in its existing form does not appear to do. On the other amendments, I fully agree with the noble Lord, Lord Irvine, that in practice the existing barrier or the hardship bar is rarely invoked and even more rarely does it succeed. The conventional advice to a client in such circumstances is simply not to try to use it.
I suggest that even at this late hour we have had a valuable debate and the future emphasis in debates on the Bill may well revolve around Clause 10. It seems to me that Clause 10 is the way in which many of the anxieties expressed about the Bill could possibly be resolved. The noble and learned Lord, in the language

1015
of the Bill, suggested that there be a period of reflection and consideration on these matters. On this occasion I hope that it will be a much shorter period than one year. Indeed, we shall be able to return to these matters at Report stage. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
It is ten minutes past eleven o'clock. If my Motion is accepted by the Government, I will sit down at once; otherwise, I shall try to satisfy your Lordships why we should rise now and resume the Committee later. I see that the noble Baroness makes a convulsive move. I hope that that is approbatory.
Moved, That the House do now resume.—(Lord Simon of Glaisdale.)
Baroness Trumpington: I do not think I can do anything convulsively at this time of night. There is light ahead in the tunnel. We will finish pretty soon, but not now. If the noble and learned Lord insists, the matter can be voted upon. I leave it in his hands.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I have no objection to the next group of amendments up to Amendment No. 117 being called. I hope that that will assuage any worry on the part of the Whips. The noble Lord, Lord Meston, has just referred to the late hour. It is ten minutes past eleven o'clock. The noble Baroness says that we will end soon. Can she indicate what "soon" means?
Baroness Trumpington: Nobody longs more for my tiny truckle bed than me. I can tell the noble Lord that we will finish at the end of Clause 13; in other words, at Amendment No.153.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I am not quite sure about that. At the moment, I believe that the proper course is to withdraw the Motion that I have proposed.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 99 to III not moved.]
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No.111A:
Page 6, line 10, leave out ("dissolving") and insert ("dissolution of').
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 112 to 114 not moved.]
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 114A:
Page 6, line 13, leave out ("to dissolve the marriage") and insert ("for the marriage to be dissolved").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 115 to 117 not moved.]
Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.
Baroness Faithfull Baroness Faithfull moved Amendment No. 118:
Before Clause 11, insert the following new clause—
ADVICE TO CHILDREN OF DIVORCED PARENTS: CHILD PROTECTION AGENCIES
(". A child protection agency shall provide help and advice to
1016
children of divorced parents who find themselves disadvantaged by the terms of the court settlement at the time of the settlement or thereafter.").
The noble Baroness said: This is a probing amendment which seeks advice from the noble and learned Lord. A number of parents, both men and women, have come to see me to say that in some cases the access arrangements are not being carried out by one or the other parent. If it is a woman, very often she cannot afford to go to court when the order is not being carried out. That also goes for men. I am afraid that a number of women give excuses, saying that the child is not able to go for its access visit, the child has an examination or a football match, or is ill. Many men have been to see me to say that they are losing contact with their sons and daughters because the access arrangements are not being adhered to.
In those circumstances, and if the parent cannot afford it, is he allowed legal aid to go back to court? I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: The ordinary arrangements for legal aid would apply for those who cannot afford it otherwise. In other words, if they are within the legal aid limits, it would be possible. I believe that that is the right arrangement. If things are not working, the person who is aggrieved by that can go back to court. That is the present system. I think it would be right that the information given at the beginning of the whole business should include reference to that possibility. One would hope to avoid it altogether, but if the situation arose, that is the way in which it would be dealt with.
Baroness Faithfull: I thank the noble and learned Lord. I beg to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 11 [Lord Chancellor's Rules]:
[Amendment No. 119 not moved.]
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 120:
Page 6, line 23, at end insert—
("( ) as to the form in which a statement is to be made:').
The noble and learned Lord said: We discussed this amendment in relation to an earlier one. I wish to make it clear that the form in which the statement has to be made is something which one can deal with. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 121 and 121A not moved.]
Lord Meston Lord Meston moved Amendment No. 122:
Page 6, line 43, leave out ("whether") and insert ("that").
The noble Lord said: I shall very briefly move this amendment, to which I did not have the opportunity to speak earlier. It seeks to alter the provisions of Clause 11(2) in that the existing provision in the Bill suggests that the Lord Chancellor may make rules which include a rule to require a legal representative to certify at such times as may be specified whether he has discussed with the parties the possibility of a reconciliation and various other matters.
That seems to me to reproduce the, frankly, lame procedure under the existing legislation whereby, on filing a divorce petition, a solicitor is required also to lodge with the court what is called a certificate of reconciliation. He does not, in fact, have to say that he has discussed with the party filing the petition the possibility of a reconciliation. He can comply with it, as he would be able to comply with the requirements under the Bill as it is presently drafted, by simply certifying that he has not discussed with his client the possibility of a reconciliation.
It seems to me under the present procedure a complete waste of time and paper for that sort of document to be lodged with the court and it would be unfortunate if the opportunity were lost under this legislation to put something more effective in the statute to require a legal representative to discuss with the party whom he happens to be advising the possibility of a reconciliation. I appreciate that my amendment on its own leaves the rest of the clause in some grammatical error, but I hope that the point is clear. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: My feeling about this provision is that legal representatives may or may not, according to the circumstances, think it right to discuss the various heads of this clause with clients. I have the impression that if one appears to force a completely general obligation of this kind, one may reduce it to fairly meaningless and rather mechanical action. That is my reservation in regard to accepting Amendment No. 122 in principle.
Lord Meston: I thank the noble and learned Lord for that indication. However, a mechanical action is possibly better than no action all. But that is a matter to which I may wish to return. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 123 to 125 not moved.]
Clause 11 agreed to.
Clause 12 [Directions with respect to mediation]:
[Amendment No. 126 not moved.]
Lord Archer of Sandwell Lord Archer of Sandwell moved Amendment No. 127:
Page 7, line 17, leave out ("the parties to attend a meeting") and insert ("each of the parties to attend a meeting, either separately or together,").
The noble and learned Lord said: I fear that I must trouble the Committee at this stage with a group of amendments. It may be appropriate that, when moving Amendment No. 127, I speak also to Amendments Nos. 128 to 131, 133 to 139, 141 to 145A, 147 to 153, 155, 164 and 169 to 171. It looks to be an alarming group of amendments on the face of it, but I hope it will not take as long as its sheer bulk appears to suggest.
We have been assured throughout these proceedings that mediation will be voluntary. Unless it is voluntary it is not likely to be successful. Clause 12 appears to introduce a compulsory element. The parties do not have
1018
to avail themselves of mediation, but they can be required to attend a meeting to explain what mediation is available and provide them with,
"an opportunity to agree to take advantage of those facilities".
That is a somewhat puzzling concept. The horse cannot be made to drink but it may well be dragged to the water. That does not seem to be a very promising introduction to the mediation process.
Amendment No. 127 relates to the form of mediation following the direction from the court. Again we find this word which we discussed in earlier debates; that is, the word "meeting". Again it raises the question whether the mediation must take the form of a meeting. If so, will it be necessary for both parties to attend the meeting together or might the court give that direction?
The Committee will recollect, when we were discussing the information session, that we may envisage a case where violence has been present in the marriage and the wife may feel totally intimidated if she has to attend a meeting with her husband. The purpose of the amendment is to offer the court a greater range of options as to the form of mediation which it directs. I hope that it will be possible for the noble and learned Lord to take the view that that can only be to the good.
Amendment No. 129 is to the same purpose. Amendment No. 131 specifically envisages a situation where there has been violence in the marriage. We are troubled at any element of compulsion because it does not seem appropriate, where there has been violence in the marriage, that it should even be open to the court to compel a wife to attend a meeting with her husband or to participate in mediation. That does not mean that mediation would not be available to the parties. It would not prevent them from participating in mediation if they voluntarily chose to do so.
Amendment No. 140, which by some process which escapes me was included in an earlier grouping, is really directed to the same question. If a wife might he compelled to attend a meeting, then she may find the necessity for disclosing that there has been violence in the marriage. Surely there should then be an opportunity, in the absence of the other party, to explain that there has been violence in the marriage. I hope that the noble and learned Lord will not find it inconvenient to deal with that matter although for some reason it was, as I say, grouped with an earlier group of amendments.
As regards Amendment No. 136, it is not clear why, if the court chooses to give a direction, it has to specify who the mediator should be. Why should not the court give a direction that there should be mediation and leave the choice of mediator to the parties, with the proviso that if they cannot agree on a mediator they return to the court? This amendment is intended to give the court a wider range of options as to the kind of direction that it might give.
The present drafting of Amendment No. 137 empowers the court to require someone, presumably the mediator, to produce a report as to whether the parties have attended the meetings and what has been decided. It may well be that the people best able to report on that are the parties themselves. Certainly, they may wish to give a report if only commenting on the report produced

1019
by the mediator. The amendment is intended to make it clear that the court may require the report from the parties and entails that the parties themselves may report if they so wish.
All these amendments reflect anxieties which have been expressed by the Law Society, the Society of Labour Lawyers and the Women's Aid Federation. I hope that the noble and learned Lord will feel able to address them. I beg to move.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: The noble and learned Lord said that mediation should be voluntary. I believe that he thereby reflected the general view in the Committee. I would like to put an alternative view. The noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, earlier quite accurately described mediation as the alternative to litigation and perhaps preliminary as well. What the mediator does is to examine with the parties the matters on which they are still at issue and tries to nudge them so that they see each other's point of view and, if possible, agree. If they cannot agree the matter has to go to adjudication with the mediator, as I have suggested, indicating how far the parties are in agreement and how far they are still at variance.
The noble and learned Lord postulated the difficulty, if it is made compulsory, of a wife who had suffered violence. But why should that be any more so than when they go before the judge? There the husband and wife confront each other and they may glare at each other. Nobody has suggested that adjudication should be voluntary. Indeed, mediation is, as I said, a preliminary alternative to adjudication. Is that very different from a process which the noble Lord, Lord Irvine, would know very well; namely, a summons for direction before a commercial or an Admiralty judge? There the matter can he considered in the presence of the parties without the judge or registrar coming to a final decision, but giving directions so as to narrow and define the issues and thereby shorten and facilitate the proceedings.
That being so, it seems to me that there are substantial advantages in saying that the mediation should be obligatory although, of course, the acceptance of the mediator's recommendation must remain voluntary. Appearance before the mediator seems a necessary preliminary and alternative step to adjudication and although the Chamber is almost a Whip's delight now, I ask the Committee to consider that alternative.
11.30 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: The quality of the representation in the Chamber is perhaps what matters most and, leaving myself out of the count, I am sure that your Lordships will agree that that is very high.
The purpose of Clause 12 is to give the court a power to require parties to attend a meeting in connection with the possibility of mediation where it appears to the court that mediation is likely to be of some value and where the parties do not appear to have given that possibility sufficient attention in the view of the court. Most of the points made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer, in this connection are worthy of consideration. The intention is that both parties should attend so that the court may see an opportunity for mediation in which
1020
both parties participate. Although I recognise that there may be situations where the court wants to try to persuade one of the parties particularly to become involved in mediation, the ordinary situation would be that the court, having seen the two parties before it, has taken the view that there should be mediation.
On the point about domestic violence, I incline to the view advanced earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Irvine, and I would trust the judge to use his discretion wisely and not try to hem it around with particular circumstances. Violence that occurred long ago in the past might not be particularly relevant, so I would not wish to produce too many conditions. That said, I am happy to consider the amendments, including Amendment No. 140.
Lord Coleraine: I should like to speak to Amendment No. 139 which stands in my name and which provides a definition of mediation in the following terms:
"In this section 'mediation' means the process of dispute resolution in marital proceedings whereby the parties, who agree and remain agreed that they believe that their marriage has broken down, voluntarily seek with the aid of a mediator to resolve by agreement any or all of their arrangements for the future"
I do not propose to speak to this at any length, but merely to give three reasons why a definition might be useful. Other more sophisticated arguments could be used. First, there is a great deal of confusion about the meaning of the word "mediation"; secondly, there is no definition in the Bill; and, thirdly, the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary is not helpful. The nearest definition that I can find to what we are considering is:
"to act as an intermediary; to intervene for the purpose of reconciling".
Clearly, that is not what we have in mind here and I should be glad to learn what my noble and learned friend thinks of that definition and, indeed, whether he thinks that a definition is needed at all.
Baroness Hamwee: I have four short drafting amendments in this group. The first two (Amendments Nos. 127A and 1 30A) merely suggest that a reference to mediation services might be more appropriate than "mediation facilities". Amendment No. 143A is designed to question the use of the word "amicably" in Clause 13(1) (a) and to suggest that a power to adjourn:
"for the purpose of enabling disputes to be resolved amicably",
is a little over-optimistic. The amendment suggests instead the words:
"without resort to the court".
The fourth of my amendments may be a little more serious. Clause 13(1) relates to the court's power to adjourn and refers to two purposes, which are given. Clause 13(2) provides:
"In determining whether to adjourn … the court shall have regard in particular to the need to protect the interests of any child of the family".
I have not quoted the whole of the subsection, because it provides:
"In determining whether to adjourn for either purpose".

1021
That seems to suggest that only the purposes set out in Clause 13(1) can be taken into account, or are material to that determination, whereas Clause 13(1) includes two purposes, but is not complete in describing them. Amendment No. 143A therefore may be a little more than just a drafting amendment.
The Lord Bishop of Oxford: Perhaps I may say a few words about Amendment No. 169 which is in my name. It is a new clause to insert:
"Such financial provision as may be necessary shall be made to ensure the readiness of bodies approved by the Lord Chancellor for the purposes of providing mediation services under this Act to carry out their functions under this Act".
We are all increasingly conscious of the heavy burden which mediation will have to bear if the Bill is finally approved. At the moment, of course, mediation services are funded largely voluntarily. Since it has become clear that government policy supports mediation traditional funders are tending to withdraw their support, assuming that franchises are already available, whereas they are unlikely to come into operation until 1999, and considering that the maintenance of local services should now be part of government responsibility.
Once the Act is implemented, of course, the core services are likely to be met, but until then some means must be found to ensure the financial viability of the local services until implementation. If the process is to work, mediation needs to be up and running. That, of course, needs financial support.
Lord Irvine of Lairg: I wish to speak briefly to Amendment No. 145 to Clause 13(1)(b) which provides for
"The court's power to adjourn … for the purpose of enabling disputes to be resolved amicably".
What the amendment proposes, and I hope that the noble and learned Lord will say that he will consider it, is that there should be added at the end of Clause 13(1)(b) the words:
"provided that no adjournment may be ordered by the court with a view to inducing a party who has declined to participate in mediation to do so".
The principle is that participation in mediation must be voluntary and not compulsory. I am concerned to ensure that there are no indirect qualifications on the generality of that proposition that mediation must be voluntary.
The subject of Clause 12, as the noble and learned Lord explained, is that the parties are to be informed about mediation facilities; they are also to be given an opportunity to avail themselves of those facilities. However, let us suppose that a party declines because, if a woman, she is intimidated by her husband; she fears that she will be unable to give a good account of herself, unrepresented, in front of the mediation; and not be able, perhaps, to speak properly for the children. Let us suppose that she would prefer to be legally represented in court. The distinguished family lawyer, Ruth Deech, who is also the Principal of St. Anne's College, Oxford, has called attention to the dangers that mediation holds for women and many agree with her. The short point that I make is that it must be made absolutely plain that
1022
under Clause 13(1)(b) a court has no power to grant an adjournment for the purpose of enabling a dispute to be resolved, in the statutory language, amicably—then I add through mediation—where there has been a prior refusal to participate in mediation.
I well understand that in the ordinary way a court can adjourn any proceedings if it believes that that will facilitate a private agreement between the parties. I am assuming a state of affairs in which there has been a prior refusal to participate in mediation, a position which a party is entitled to adopt because mediation is truly voluntary. If the court had any such power it would be enabled to seek to induce a party who has declined to participate in mediation to do so. I suggest that it should be made plain beyond doubt that no court may do that. I suggest that the amendment is necessary for that purpose. It would underscore the fact that no court pressure may be brought on individuals who have declined to participate in mediation to do so.
Lord Meston: I speak to Amendment No. 142 standing in my name and that of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford. It would provide that:
"Mediation under this Act shall be conducted according to the Code of Practice of a body approved by the Lord Chancellor for the purposes of mediation".
There are now a large number of potential mediators in the field who are of varying calibre, training and background. A recent major advance has been the inauguration of the United Kingdom College of Mediators, which should ensure the attainment and maintenance of high standards and professional accountability.
Amendment No. 142 would ensure that the practice of mediation conducted under the provisions of the Bill is of the highest order by placing on the face of the Bill the requirement that such mediation be conducted according to the code of practice of bodies approved for the purposes of mediation by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. The amendment has the support of National Family Mediation, which supports the principle of a code of practice on the face of the Bill. If mediation is a vital part of the operation of the Bill, and it will be vital for the divorcing parties and their families, it seems desirable that there is a statutorily approved code of practice. As the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, said earlier today, one must bear in mind that public funds are being directed towards such bodies.
Amendments Nos. 135, 144, 150 and 153 are directed to a separate matter. Amendment No. 135 is concerned with the nature of Clause 12(4) and in some ways the point has already been touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg. Under Clause 12 the court may give a direction requiring the parties to attend a meeting to enable them to receive an explanation of the facilities available for mediation. Under the procedures of the Bill, that may well be the third time that they have been confronted with an explanation of mediation. I question how much direct pressure there should be on the parties to mediate if mediation is meant to be a voluntary process.
The remaining amendments are really concerned with the assumption that it is only through mediation that an amicable settlement can be produced. It is not to be

1023
assumed that lawyers are completely otiose in the framework of this Bill, particularly since the parties themselves will be seeking a settlement which is to be concluded within the existing framework of matrimonial finance and property law. Therefore I would propose that recognition is given to that point in Clause 13 by extending the reference to a resolution of the dispute to include resolution whether by mediation or otherwise.
11.45 p.m.
Baroness Faithfull: The noble Lord, Lord Meston, has spoken to Amendment No. 142 concerning a code of practice generally speaking. Amendment No. 141 requests a code of practice specifically relating to children, and this amendment is put forward by all the children's organisations. I thought I should make this clear to the noble Lord, Lord Meston, because it really lies up with his amendment.
The Lord Chancellor: This also is a varied collection of amendments. I have already tried to deal with the points of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Archer of Sandwell, on Clause 12. The purpose of Clause 12 is best explained by saying that the court may realise, once the matter comes before it, that the parties have not really understood what mediation can do for them in the particular circumstances. I personally am prepared to trust the court in this matter. In a sense the existence of Clause 12 and that power means that the court can adjourn to allow mediation to take place. think I understand that none of us would wish the court to use some oblique pressure but, on the other hand, if the court feels that the parties, notwithstanding our efforts to inform them, do not really appreciate or have understood the efforts that have been made or realise how mediation could help them in the circumstances of their particular case, the court should invite them to attend a meeting at which that would be clearly explained to them. In a sense it is just reinforcing the messages they have already got.
Of course I have very clearly heard what my noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale says, but so far as I am concerned I think mediation involves a degree of positive contribution from both sides to the mediator in a way that is not necessarily the case in connection with compulsory adjudication. I believe the coercive power of the state is available in relation to the backing of a judge, a district judge, or indeed any other judge for that matter, in the exercise of his judicial power. The mediator is not in that capacity exactly. Therefore I personally prefer to regard mediation as voluntary. I think the courts should be given discretion, which I am confident they will use properly, to try to ensure that where mediation is appropriate the parties will understand what benefits it holds for them.
I will take advice, if I may, on the matters put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Meston, principally as drafting amendments. However, I should like to say something about the amendments dealing with mediation. I will certainly consider whether a definition would help. There is a lack of clarity among some about what is meant by "mediation" and it may well be that some definition of that kind may help. I am sad that The
1024
Shorter Oxford English Dictionary is not helpful in that connection. I shall obviously have to look elsewhere, as well as referring to my noble friend's amendment, to ascertain whether the definition is sufficiently comprehensive.
On the amendments of the right reverend Prelate, I must point out that I have to be pretty careful about taking responsibility for funding. I am very sympathetic to that and have a certain degree of support which may be available. I have indicated a seminar when we may look at the matter, which should take place early in the spring, but obviously the priorities of government have to be taken into account. I am personally very sympathetic to mediation. I know that it has been well supported and I should like to see such support continue from those who have believed in it.
My final point relates to another amendment tabled in the names of the right reverend Prelate and the noble Lord, Lord Meston, and also to the corresponding amendment of my noble friend Lady Faithfull. I believe that there is a good deal of merit in having a code of practice dealing with mediation. The discussions that we have had on the Bill during the earlier stages of the Committee have, I believe, emphasised that fact. Indeed, one could have a code of practice without attempting to regulate the profession as it develops. Such a code would be a useful way of signifying to members of the profession the subject matters that Parliament had in mind for them to address. In fact, a good number of those matters were mentioned during the course of our discussion.
Therefore, at present I should like to consider the amendments. I am inclined to the view that it would he better for the Lord Chancellor to have the responsibility of issuing—and, from time to time, revising—a code of practice in respect of mediation, both in relation to children and more generally. That would give me an opportunity, for example, to put reconciliation and the need for it to be considered into the forefront of the mind of the mediator. That is not to say that the mediator would carry that out, but the opportunity for referring to services which might help in that respect would be kept in view. I believe that one could do that without, as I said, regulating the profession. So far as I am concerned, the sanction would be that the Legal Aid Board would not arrange for public money to be used in a mediation service which did not comply with the code of practice. Of course, if the new college of mediators draws up a code of its own, I would wish to draw upon it very heavily. However, I believe that there is an advantage for Parliament to be able to express to the mediators from time to time, through the Lord Chancellor, what Parliament sees as the priorities for such an important process in the new way that we are trying to handle these delicate matters.
Those are my preliminary views in relation to the matters raised in the debate on this group of amendments. In the light of those considerations, I hope

1025
that Members of the Committee will enable me to bring forward on Report various matters dealing with at least some of the issues.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: I believe that we have had a valuable debate, nothwithstanding the approach of midnight. Unusually, I have the misfortune to differ from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, who did not see why mediation was necessarily voluntary. I echo the views very respectfully of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. Surely the answer is that the mediator has no power to make a mandatory order. He can seek only to bring parties to an agreement and he depends upon their participation in the process and upon their acceptance of what he recommends. I suspect that the noble and learned Lord is in a minority on that issue.
Having accepted that mediation should be a voluntary process, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said that he would be prepared to trust the judges. With the exception of those provisions in the Bill which—if I may use an expression which has been used more than once in the course of our debates—send a signal that pressure may be placed upon people to participate in mediation, I would share the views of the noble and learned Lord. I would only point out that some of the proposed amendments actually widen the discretion of the judge. I hope that when he considers these matters he takes that into account.
I am grateful for his offer to consider the various amendments which have been put forward, and perhaps even he will welcome an opportunity to do so after a night's sleep. I cannot speak for other noble Lords who have moved amendments but, speaking for myself, I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment No. 127.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 127A to 140 not moved.]
1026
Clause 12 agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 141 and 142 not moved.]
Clause 13 [Adjournments]:
[Amendments Nos. 143 to 146 not moved.]
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendments Nos. 147 to 149:
Page 8, line 4, leave out ("made by the Lord Chancellor") and insert ("of court").
Page 8, line 3, at beginning insert ("If the court adjourns any proceedings connected with the breakdown of a marriage for either purpose").
Page 8, line 1, leave out subsection (3).
The noble and learned Lord said: My recollection is that these are drafting amendments which are reasonably self-evident in their application. I have left out subsection (3) as being unnecessary, and then put into the later lines enough to deal with the matter without the use of subsection (3). These are drafting amendments and with your Lordships' leave, in order to save time, I would move them en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 150 to 153 not moved.]
Clause 13, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 14 [Financial arrangements]:
[Amendment No. 153A not moved.]
Clause 14 agreed to.
Baroness Trumpington: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.
House adjourned at two minutes before midnight.

Official Report of the Committee on the Reserve Forces Bill [H.L.]
Tuesday, 23rd January 1996.
The Committee met at half past three of the clock.
[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Amptill) in the Chair.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Ampthill): Before I put the question that the Title be postponed, it may be helpful to remind your Lordships of the procedure for today's Committee. Except in one important respect our proceedings will be exactly as in a normal Committee of the Whole House. We shall go through the Bill clause by clause, noble Lords will speak standing, all noble Lords are free to attend, and participate, and the proceedings will be recorded in Hansard. But the House has agreed there shall be no Divisions in this Committee. Any issue on which agreement cannot be reached should be considered again at the Report stage when, if necessary, a Division may be called. Unless, therefore, an amendment is likely to be agreed to, it should be withdrawn.
I should also explain what will happen if there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting. This Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division bells are rung and will resume after 10 minutes.
Lord Williams of Elvel: Perhaps I can explain how the Opposition intend to conduct themselves today. Your Lordships will be aware that we have had many government amendments produced at a very late stage. It has therefore been agreed through the usual channels that this session of the Committee will be one which will hear government amendments.
As far as the Opposition are concerned, I shall be moving the first group on the grouping list, starting with Amendment No. 4, which the Government have agreed and therefore there will be no question of a Division. After that the Opposition will neither move any amendment nor speak to any other amendment moved by a noble Lord.
The object of the exercise, as agreed through the usual channels, is that we get through the government amendments this afternoon, that the Bill should be re-printed tonight and that the Leader of the House will make a business Statement tomorrow indicating that the Bill, revised by the Committee if the government amendments are accepted, is to be re-printed, and that there will be re-commitment of the reprinted Bill, which means that we shall meet again on Thursday with that re-printed Bill before us. That is the Opposition's view, agreed through the usual channels. I would only say one other thing. I am working on the assumption that there will be no more government amendments tabled in the meantime.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Earl Howe): I shall respond
CWH 2
briefly to the noble Lord, Lord Williams. He is absolutely correct. The Government have agreed that, in view of the circumstances, we shall seek to move all government amendments today and that the Bill will be re-committed on Thursday following re-printing.
On Question, Title postponed.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [Membership of the reserve forces]:
[Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 not moved.]
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 2, line 5, leave out from ("force") to end of line 6.
The noble Earl said: This amendment removes unnecessary words from Clause 2(3), because their effect is achieved by paragraph 1(2) of Schedule 8 to the Bill. Subsection (3) currently provides that men of the volunteer reserve forces will have been listed or re-engaged in those forces. The amendment removes the provision from Clause 2(3) that there will be some men of the Royal Auxiliary Air Force who will have transferred to that force by paragraph 7(2) of Schedule 8. Schedule 8 already makes this provision, so the reference in Clause 2(3) is unnecessary. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3 [Control of numbers in the reserve forces]:
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 2, line 10, leave out subsection (I).
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 4 standing in my name and that of my noble friends Lady Turner of Camden and Lord Judd. It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I also speak to Amendments Nos. 5 to 7, 60 and 61. I should emphasise that the amendments following Amendment No. 4 which I have just mentioned are consequential on Amendment No. 4, and therefore if the Committee agrees to Amendment No. 4, provided I am alert enough on my feet to move Amendments Nos. 60 and 61 when they are called, those will be passed.
This amendment is really quite simple. It seeks to establish parliamentary control of the numbers in the reserve marine forces and put them on the same basis as the Army and Air Force. This amendment, as I understand it, has been agreed by the Government and therefore I hope very much that the Committee will agree to it. I beg to move.
Earl Howe: The Government had already considered whether we should have uniform provisions for controlling the maximum numbers of all the reserve forces. We were initially hesitant in removing a distinction which has been maintained for over 300 years but, having been encouraged by the tabling of this amendment, we gladly support it.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendments Nos. 5 to 7:
Page 2, line 14, leave out ("land and air").
Page 2, line 15, leave out ("such a") and insert ("a reserve").
Page 2, line 17, leave out ("any of the reserve land and air forces") and insert ("a reserve force").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 8 not moved.]
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 4 [Orders and regulations concerning the reserve forces]:
[Amendments Nos. 9 to 11 not moved.]
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clause 5 [Organisation of the reserve forces]:
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 2, line 41, after ("by") insert ("or in accordance with").
The noble Earl said: In speaking to this amendment, I will also speak to Amendment No.17. These amendments will avoid bureaucracy by allowing delegation of procedures to those more closely affected by them, leaving the Defence Council to regulate the over-arching framework within which those procedures are carried out. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 3, line 5, after ("into") insert ("corps,").
The noble Earl said: This amendment inserts "corps" into the list of military bodies into which the reserve land forces may be divided. It was omitted from the original Bill in error. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to. Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 6 agreed to.
Clause 7 [Pay, bounty and allowances of the reserve forces]:
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No.14:
Page 3, line 19, leave out ("officers and men") and insert ("members").
The noble Earl said: Where provisions apply to both officers and men of the reserve force, the general practice throughout the Bill is to refer simply to members of a reserved force, unless there is a specific reason for referring to them separately. In this case there is no such reason and, in the interests of consistency, this amendment is considered desirable. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 8 [Pensions]:
[Amendment No. 15 not moved.]
Clause 8, agreed to.
Clause 9 [Enlistment of men in the reserve forces]:
[Amendment No. 16 not moved.]
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 4, line 10, at end insert ("or in accordance with").
The noble Earl said: I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 12. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 10 [Enlistment of foreign nationals and residents]:
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 18:
Leave out Clause 10 and insert the following new Clause—
ENLISTMENT OF FOREIGN NATIONALS AND RESIDENTS
(" .—(1) Orders or regulations under section 4 may provide for the enlistment in any reserve force of persons who are not British citizens or who reside outside the United Kingdom.
(2) A person who is not a British citizen or who resides outside the United Kingdom may not be enlisted in a reserve force unless his enlistment is permitted by provision made for the purposes of subsection (1).").
The noble Earl said: This amendment restructures Clause 10 without significantly changing its effect. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.
[Amendment No. 19 not moved.]
Clause 11 [Re-engagement for service]:
[Amendment No. 20 not moved.]
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 4, line 27, leave out ("person") and insert ("man").
The noble Earl said: In moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 23 and 24, all of which address minor drafting points. The central issue in these amendments is that only men can enlist or re-engage, and the amendments make the drafting more precise. I beg to move.
Lord Mottistone: Does this mean that women cannot re-engage?
Earl Howe: My noble friend will wish to look at Clause 2(4) of the Bill where the word "man" is defined in terms of either sex.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 11, as amended, agreed to.
3.45 p.m.
Clause 12 [Orders and regulations as to enlistment etc.]:
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 4, line 34, leave out from ("provision") to end of line 35 and insert ("with respect to the enlistment and re-engagement of men in, and the discharge of men from,").
The noble Earl said: In moving this amendment I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 25, 26, 27 and 28. I believe they are straightforward. Amendment No. 22 is a minor drafting amendment which clarifies the intention in Clause 12 that orders or regulations may make provision concerning discharge.
Amendment No. 25 omits Clause 12(3) which seems on reflection to be unnecessary. The right to specify conditions is already implicit within orders or regulation

CWH 5
and does not need to be explicitly expressed in this clause. Amendment No. 26 redrafts Clause 12(4) without changing the intended effect.
Amendments Nos. 27 and 28 revise Clause 13(5) to include men of any of the reserve forces. This permits subsection (5) to be included among similar provisions relating to orders and regulations under Clause 12. Amendment No. 28 changes the order of clauses under Part II by moving Clause 12 to be after Clause 18. As the part appears, there is no clear progression of events from enlistment through to discharge and this minor change permits these events to be grouped together at the beginning of the part with clauses relating to orders and regulation in a group at the end. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 23:
Page 4, line 41, leave out ("person") and insert ("man").
The noble Earl said: I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 21. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 5, line 1, leave out (''person") and insert ("man").
The noble Earl said: Again, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 21. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendments Nos. 25 to 27:
Page 5, line 5, leave out subsection (3).
Page 5, line 8, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
("(4) No order or regulations under section 4 may make provision such as is mentioned in subsection (I) which has the effect, in relation to any person who was a man of a reserve force immediately before the coming into force of the order or regulations concerned—

(a) of imposing a new or greater obligation on him without his consent, or

(b) of varying or revoking, without his consent, a right to which he is entitled, not being a right exercisable only with the consent of another person or an authority.").

Page 5, line 16, at end insert—
("(5) The term for which, or any limited area within which, a man of a reserve force is liable to serve may not, without his consent, be affected or extended by or in accordance with orders or regulations under section 4.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 12, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Craig of Radley: May I just ask a question? In Clause 12(2)(a), line 38, there is again a "person" who has not been changed to "man".
Earl Howe: Will the noble and gallant Lord kindly repeat the reference?
Lord Craig of Radley: Line 38, page 4. I am not sure if my question was answered.
Earl Howe: I was not able to give an answer to the noble and gallant Lord at the time. I do not believe I can do so now. It may be that I shall have to go away and look at the point between now and the time we next convene.
CWH 6
Clause 12, as amended, agreed to.
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 28:
After Clause 12, transpose Clause 12 to after Clause 18.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 13 [Service in the reserve land and air forces on enlistment]:
[Amendments Nos. 29 and 30 not moved.]
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 31:
Leave out Clause 13 and insert the following new clause—
SERVICE IN THE RESERVE LAND AND AIR FORCES ON ENLISTMENT
(" .—(1) Orders and regulations under section 4 may make provision as to the corps, units or bodies into which persons enlisting in a reserve land or air force may be enlisted.

(2) Subject to any restriction of choice imposed by or in accordance with orders or regulations under section 4—

(a) a man of the Territorial Army shall be enlisted for service in such corps and posted to such unit as he may select;

(b) a man of the Royal Auxiliary Air Force shall be enlisted for service in such unit as he may select; and

(c) a man enlisted in the Army Reserve or the Air Force Reserve shall be enlisted for service in such military body or air-force body (as the case may be) as he may select.

(3) A man of the Territorial Army may not (after his enlistment) be transferred to another corps, or posted or attached to any unit, without his consent.

(4) A man of the Royal Auxiliary Air Force may not (after his enlistment) be posted or attached to any unit without his consent.

(5) A man of the Army Reserve or Air Force Reserve may not (after his enlistment in or transfer to that force) be appointed, posted, transferred or attached to any military body or air-force body without his consent.

(6) Subsections (3), (4) and (5) do not apply to a man of a reserve force while he is in permanent service.").

The noble Earl said: The amendment meets concerns expressed to me by certain noble Lords on the Opposition Benches that the pensions' clause was misleading because possible restrictions on the choice of unit were not given prominence. This redraft rectifies that and improves the drafting of the rest of the clause without significant changes.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 13, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 14 [Transfer of men between reserve forces]:
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 32:
Page 6, line 9, leave out subsection (1) and insert—
("(1) A man serving in an ex-regular reserve force on transfer from the regular services may, with the consent of an authorised officer, enli,4 in another reserve force.
(1A) A man enlisted in a reserve force (including a man enlisted by virtue of subsection (1)) may, with the consent of an authorised officer, enlist in another reserve force.
(1B) On enlisting in a reserve force by virtue of this section the man concerned shall cease to be a member of the reserve force in which he was previously serving.").
The noble Earl said: The amendment expresses the existing provisions of Clause 14 in a clearer style. In speaking to it, I would also like to speak to Amendments Nos. 33, 34, 35 and 251. The clarity extends to a new definition of "term of compulsory service". I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendments 33, 34 and 35:
Page 6, line 12, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
("(2) A man originally serving in an ex-regular reserve force on transfer from the regular services who—

(a) ceases to be a member of a reserve force in which he enlisted by virtue of this section without enlisting or re-enlisting in another reserve force; and

(b) does so before the date on which his term of compulsory service in the ex-regular reserve force to which he was transferred would have expired if he had not ceased to be a member of it on enlisting in another reserve force,

shall, unless an authorised officer otherwise directs, again be a man of the ex-regular reserve force to which he was transferred from the regular services.").
Page 6, line 24, leave out from first ("of") to end of line 25 and insert—
("(a) one or more named individuals; or
(b) persons of any description specified in the direction.").
Page 6, line 28, at end insert—
("(5) In this Act "term of compulsory service" means the term for which a person is required to serve in an ex-regular reserve force in pursuance of a requirement imposed by or under the Army Act 1955, the Air Force Act 1955 or the Armed Forces Act 1966.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 14, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 15 [General powers to discharge men of the reserve forces]:
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 36:
Page 6, line 32, leave out ("subsection (1)") and insert ("this section").
The noble Earl said: In moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 37, 38 and 39. Clause 15 defines the provisions which enable the Defence Council to discharge a man from the reserve forces at any time. The clause is necessary to allow men to be discharged for both routine and exceptional reasons. All these amendments are designed to clarify the discharge provisions under Clause 15. They are straightforward and I hope they will not present any difficulty to the Committee. Amendment No. 36 is a minor drafting amendment. Amendment No. 38 is an improvement on the wording of subsection (4) which provides for a suitable route for appeals against discharge. Two amendments, Amendments Nos. 37 and 39 respectively, remove the existing provision given to commanding officers for discharge, and replace it with a separate new clause. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendments Nos. 37 and 38:
Page 6, line 35, leave out subsection (3).
Page 6, line 37, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
("(4) A man discharged by an authorised officer may appeal to the Defence Council, who may give such directions in his case (including a direction annulling the discharge) as they consider appropriate.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 15, as amended, agreed to.
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 39:
After Clause 15, insert the following new clause—
DISCHARGE BY COMMANDING OFFICER
(" .—(1) A commanding officer may discharge any man of a reserve force under his command, in such manner and on such grounds as may be prescribed.
(2) A man discharged by his commanding officer may appeal to the Defence Council, who may give such directions in his case (including a direction annulling the discharge) as they consider appropriate.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 16 [Entitlement to discharge]:
[Amendment No. 40 not moved.]
Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 41:
Page 7, line 5, leave out ("compulsory term of') and insert ("term of compulsory").
The noble Earl said: In moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 43. These are minor drafting amendments. Clause 16 specifies the conditions which entitle any man of any reserve force to be discharged. Amendments Nos. 41 and 43 ensure that the wording of Clause 16 is consistent with Clause 14. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 42:
Page 7, line 6, leave out ("(b)") and insert ("(a)").
The noble Earl said: In moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 45. These amendments correct errors in the cross-references in Clause 16 which were caused by a misprint in the labelling of the paragraphs of subsection (2) of that clause.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 43:
Page 7, line 6, leave out from second ("of') to end of line 7 and insert ("his term of compulsory service.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 44 not moved.]
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 45:
Page 7, line 8, leave out ("(2)(b)") and insert ("(2)(a)").
The noble Earl said: This was spoken to with Amendment No. 42. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 46:
Page 7, line 12, leave out ("only").
The noble Earl said: Amendment No. 46 is a minor drafting amendment relating to the conditions which apply to a man's entitlement to discharge, and in particular the surrender of equipment and other public property. If the word "only" added anything to the sense of subsection (4)(b), it was an unreasonable inference that, say, accidental damage could not be accepted in addition to fair wear and tear. It is better omitted. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 47:
Page 7, line 19, leave out subsection (5).
The noble Earl said: With the leave of the Committee, in moving Amendment No. 47 I shall speak to Amendment No. 50, as together they move a provision on discharge from Clause 16 to Clause 17 where it more logically belongs.
The removal and addition of text means that Clause 17 now provides that a man entitled to discharge under Clause 16 may only be discharged once he is released from permanent or full-time service. Clause 17 had previously applied only to a man who was not in permanent or full-time service. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 48:
Page 7, line 23, after ("man") insert ("of a reserve force").
The noble Earl said: This amendment is another drafting point which provides that the use of the term "man" is qualified as being "of a reserve force". It ensures that the use of "man" in Clause 16(5) is understood.
Clause 16(6) provides that a man who becomes entitled for discharge should be discharged with all convenient speed under the orders and regulations under Clause 4. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 49:
Page 7, line 24, at end insert ("(and shall continue as a man of that force until actually discharged)").
The noble Earl said: In moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendments 51 and 52. These amendments are designed to tidy up the text. Amendments Nos. 49 and 52 transfer the substance of Clause 18(1) into Clause 16(6), with some saving of words. Amendment No. 51 is a minor drafting point which clarifies the phrase "that order" in Clause 17(3) by specifying it as a call-out order.
Clause 16(6) thus now provides that a man entitled to discharge shall be discharged with all convenient speed, although he will continue to be a member of a reserve force until actually discharged.
Clause 18 provides for the rights of men on being discharged. The removal of the subsection (1) means its scope is slightly narrower, providing that a man serving outside the United Kingdom who is to be discharged is entitled to be returned to the United Kingdom free of charge. It also provides that he would be entitled to free travel, either to the place where he was attested or to his intended place of residence in the United Kingdom. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 16, as amended, agreed to.
4 p.m.
Clause 17 [Postponement of discharge]:
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendments Nos. 50 and 51:
Page 7, line 25, at beginning insert—
("( ) Where, at the time he would (apart from this section) become entitled to be discharged under section 16, a man is in permanent service or full-time service under a full-time service commitment, he shall not be entitled to be discharged until he is released from that service.").
Page 7, line 39, after ("that") insert ("call-out").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 17, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 18 [Rights of men on being discharged]:
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: Amendment No. 52 has been spoken to by the noble Earl, Lord Howe. I would remind the noble Lord, Lord Williams, that if it is agreed to, he will be unable to move, as he would not wish to, Amendment No. 53.
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 52:
Page 7, line 40, leave out subsection (1).
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 53 not moved.]
Clause 18, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 19 agreed to.
Clause 20 agreed to.
Clause 21 [Obligatory training of members of the reserve forces]:
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 54:
Page 9, line 14, leave out ("sections 22 and") and insert ("section").
The noble Earl said: This amendment paves the way for the collection together into a schedule of the provisions of the Bill relating to members of the reserve forces who have reserve rights to retaining their liabilities under the current legislation. In speaking to this amendment I should also like to speak to Amendments Nos. 65, 97, 117 and 187. The schedule has now been formalised but, in deference to the House and the Committee, it has not yet been tabled. The Government will be tabling it at the earliest reasonable opportunity but it is consequential upon these amendments. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 21, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 22 negatived.
Clause 23 agreed to.
Clause 24 [Commitments to a period of full-time service]:
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 55:
Page 10, line 13. leave out ("undertaking") and Insert ("to undertake").
The noble Earl said: In speaking to this amendment I should also like to speak to Amendment No. 57. These amendments effect no substantive change to the Bill. They are designed to clarify what the reservist does

CWH 11
when he enters into the two different types of written commitment, whether for a period of full-time service, or for additional duties. In both cases, the changes make it clear that the written commitment is to perform the period of full-time service in the case of Clause 24, and to perform the duties specified for the period or periods specified in the case of Clause 25. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 56 not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 24, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Earl Bathurst: Regarding Clause 24, I regret that I did not have the opportunity of being at Second Reading. But it is fairly complicated to read through these duties of a reserve forces member. Will he or she be able to be called out by his unit for a purpose of national emergency or disaster somewhat in the same way as the National Guard in the United States? Is that in here or in these amendments? I am just asking for clarification.
Earl Howe: The Bill provides for the reserve forces to be used in the way the noble Earl suggests. It is a change to the current legislation that has been widely welcomed by the reserve forces.
Earl Bathurst: I thank the noble Earl. It is not totally clear here, but whether the rest of the country is aware of this matter or the TA itself I would wonder. But that is another point.
Lord Craig of Radley: I draw attention once again to the use of the word "person" three times in Clause 24 and suggest that the noble Earl the Minister gives consideration to that.
Earl Bathurst: It is better than "personnel".
Earl Howe: I am grateful to the eagle eye of the noble and gallant Lord and I shall take his point away with me.
Clause 24, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 25 [Additional duties commitments]:
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 57:
Page 11, line 22, leave out ("undertaking").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 58 not moved.]
Clause 25, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 26 [Parliamentary control of commitments]:
[Amendment No. 59 not moved.]
Lord Williams of Elvel Lord Williams of Elvel moved Amendments Nos. 60 and 61:
Page 12, line 24, leave out ("any of the reserve land and air") and insert ("each of the reserve").
Page 12, line 29, leave out from first ("and") to ("force") in line 30 and insert ("men of a reserve").
The noble Lord said: I have already spoken to Amendments Nos. 60 and 61. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 26, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 27 agreed to.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: I must now make a personal statement. I had not anticipated that we would proceed with such speed with the Bill and I have not marked up my copy of the Marshalled List from this point onwards. Therefore I shall have to ask the Committee's indulgence for any mistakes which may easily trip from my lips. We will hope for the best!
Clause 28 [Special agreements]:
[Amendments Nos. 62 and 63 not moved.]
Clause 28 agreed to.
Clause 29 agreed to.
Clause 30 [Consent of new employer]:
[Amendment No. 64 not moved.]
Clause 30 agreed to.
4.15 p.m.
Clause 31 [Termination of special agreements]:
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No.65:
Page 15, leave out lines 12 and 13.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 31, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 32 [Call-out notices]:
[Amendments Nos. 66 and 67 not moved.]
Clause 33 agreed to.
Clause 34 [Release from service:]
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 68:
Page 17, line 9, leave out ("his services are no longer required by Her Majesty") and insert ("he is no longer required by Her Majesty to be in that service").
The noble Earl said: In moving this amendment, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 106, 141 and 164.
Amendment No. 68 is a minor redrafting amendment. It avoids any inference that, at the point of release from permanent service, Her Majesty should dispense with an individual's services altogether. The new words focus on permanent service as the service from which the individual is released. Amendments Nos. 141 and 165 serve an identical purpose. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 69:
Page 17, line 30, leave out ("current") and insert ("relevant").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 107, 142, and 141.
Amendment No. 69 effects a minor change of wording which fits better with the language of the sections mentioned in Clause 34. Amendments Nos. 107, 142, and 171 achieve the same purpose in Clauses 48, 63 and 75 respectively. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 34, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 35 [Exercise of functions by authorised officers]:
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 70:
Page 17, line 35, leave out ("authorised").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I wish also to speak to a number of other amendments; namely, Amendments Nos. 72, 73, 74, 109, 110, 111, 112, 143, 144, 145, 146, 177, 178, 179 and 180. The effect of all these amendments is exactly the same—they all remove the word "authorised" from the description of the officers to whom the Secretary of State may delegate his functions. As presently drafted, the Bill provides that the Secretary of State may delegate his powers to authorised officers. Strictly speaking, before the officers concerned have been authorised to exercise the powers the Secretary of State can delegate to them, they are not authorised officers. This implies that the authorisation and delegation are separate processes involving authorisation first, followed by delegation of the appropriate functions. The amendment clarifies that there is no need for the officers concerned to be formally authorised before the Secretary of State can delegate his functions to them. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 71 not moved.]
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendments Nos. 72, 73 and 74:
Page 17, line 36, leave out ("authorised").
Page 17, line 43, leave out ("authorised").
Page 18, line 1, leave out ("authorised").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 35, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 36 [Parliamentary control of numbers and reports]:
[Amendment No. 75 not moved.]
Clause 36 agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 76 and 77 not moved.]
Clause 37 [Interpretation of Part IV]:
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 78:
Page 18, line 32, leave out ("for services") and insert ("of service").
The noble Earl said: This is a technical amendment to insert the correct description of a contract of employment into Clause 37 (2). I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 79:
Page 18, line 37, at end insert—
("(3A) Regulations under subsection (3) shall be made by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.").
The noble Earl said: In speaking to Amendment No. 79, I shall also speak to Amendment No. 80. A reservist who enters into a special agreement has to obtain the consent of his employer. He may have more than one employer. To avoid those for whom he works on a casual or informal basis having a disproportionate
CWH 14
influence on whether or not he enters into this special agreement, it is considered that he only needs to obtain the consent of an employer for whom he carries out a significant amount of work. The Bill defines a relevant employer as somebody for whom the reservist works for more than 14 hours a week.
The Bill provides for regulations to be made to reduce the figure below 14 hours but not to increase it above that figure. Power is also given to make detailed regulations as to whether a particular contract normally involves more than 14 hours work or not.
The Bill provided for parliamentary control over both sets of regulations through negative resolution procedure. This remains appropriate for the detailed regulations governing the definition of when a particular contract involves 14 hours' service or not. However, the importance of the regulations under subsection (5) which can alter the 14 hours' figure are sufficiently important for the affirmative procedure to apply so that Parliament may have a more ready opportunity to consider their effect on the relationship between the interests of the employer, the reservist and the reserve forces. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 80:
Page 18, line 42, leave out subsection (5) arid insert—
("(5) An order under subsection (4) shall he made by statutory instrument; but no such instrument shall be made unless a draft of it has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.).
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 37, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 38 [Purpose of Part V]:
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 81:
Page 19, line 4, leave out ("of registered employers").
The noble Earl said: In speaking to this amendment, I also wish to speak to Amendments Nos. 85, 88, 89, 99, 100, 103, 108, 114, 115 and 166. This group affects Clauses 38, 39, 42, 46, 48, 50 and 51 and introduces a new clause. The amendments stem from a question raised with me by noble Lords on the Benches opposite about the need for employers of special members to be registered. Having reviewed the provisions, we have concluded that the concept of registration should be removed. In consequence, we have needed to redefine the relationships between the Secretary of State, employers and their employees which bind the provisions of Part V together. These relationships will now set the scope of persons who are eligible to become sponsored reservists. The definition we intend to adopt is the existence of an arrangement between an employer and the Secretary of State. Such arrangements will usually be contracts, but we have not used the term because that will not invariably be the case. In the absence of the concept of registration, we also need to qualify various references to employers and employees throughout Part V. My Lords, contractors who have agreed to arrangements which involve the sponsored reserve concept may wish to engage subcontractors or self-employed persons. Provided that they meet with our

CWH 15
approval, we would not wish to inhibit that. This was catered for under the registered employer mechanism, but the redefinition of relationships requires new provisions to keep the options of prime contractors open.
Amendment No.114, which inserts a new clause, contains these provisions. Also included in this new clause is the existing material dealing with Crown servants which is in Amendment No.116 and that is deleted from Clause 51(2). I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No.82:
Page 19, line 10, leave out from ("force") to end of line 12 and insert ("specified in the agreement.").
The noble Earl said: In speaking to Amendment No. 82, I should also like to speak to Amendments Nos. 91, 92, 93 and 95. This group affects Clauses 38 and 39. These amendments stem from a concern that, although signed, employee agreements will not come into force until a date specified in the agreement. That date could well be after the signing, thus creating a period of no obligation on the part of the parties involved. Amendment No. 91 removes from Clause 39(3) the requirement to stipulate the date on which the agreement is to come into force, in order that it may come into force upon signing.
Amendments Nos. 82 and 92, 93 and 95 are a consequence of this change because when a member of the reserved force became a special member, he was dependent on the date that the agreement came into force. Under the new arrangement this will not always be possible, as in order to be a special member of a reserve force, an employee must—if he is not already a member—first join the force. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 83:
Page 19, line 15, leave out ("and").
The noble Earl said: In speaking to Amendment No. 83 I should also like to speak to Amendments Nos. 84 and 96. This group affects Clauses 38 and 41. Amendments Nos. 84 and 96 draw together in Clause 38(3) the provisions on the scope of orders and regulations made under Clause 4 relating to Part V of the Bill, and logically transfer to the same clause the statutory requirement to consult before making certain regulations. For completeness, Amendment No. 84 also adds two new provisions. The first permits regulations to provide special terms and conditions of service applicable to the period between the cessation of a special member's Clause 41(1) liabilities and his discharge from a reserve force. This provision is required to ensure that appropriate terms and conditions of service can apply to a special member immediately his liabilities to be called and to train cease. I should emphasise that the regulations will not be able to create an obligation on him to train or be called out. The second creates an obligation to consult with representatives of the self-employed before making regulations on terms and conditions of service. This is a logical consequence of expressly extending the coverage
CWH 16
of Part V to the self-employed. These provisions are required to ensure that terms and conditions of service are not too onerous for either special members who are self-employed or for any special member immediately his liabilities to be called out and to train cease. Amendment No. 83 is a minor consequential drafting change. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 84:
Page 19, line 18, at end insert—

("(c) enabling the making of requests by a special member (whether before or after ceasing to be subject to the liability mentioned in section 41(1)) for permission to continue as a member of his force on ceasing to be a special member;

(d) as to any terms and conditions applicable to a special member who has ceased to be subject to the liability mentioned in section 41(1);

(e) as to the terms and conditions on which persons resume or begin service as ordinary members of a reserve force by virtue of section (Discharge etc. of special members no longer liable to be called out or to train).

() Before orders or regulations under section 4 are made as to the terms and conditions of service of special members of a reserve force, the Secretary of State or, in the case of regulations the Defence Council, shall consult—

(a) one or more bodies appearing to that authority to represent the interests of employers concerned with the supply of goods or services to the armed forces;

(b) one or more bodies or persons appearing to that authority to represent the interests of employees of such employers; and

(c) one or more bodies or persons appearing to that authority to represent the interests of self-employed persons concerned with the supply of goods or services to the armed forces.")

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 38, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 39 [Entry into agreements]:
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 85:
Page 19, line 20, leave out subsection (I) and insert—
("(1) An employee agreement may be entered into by any employee in pursuance of arrangements made between his employer and the Secretary of State").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments No. 86 and 87 not moved.]
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendments No. 88 and 89:
Page 19, line 22, leave out ("a registered employer") and insert ("an employer who has made any such arrangements").
Page 19, line 23, leave out ("his") and insert ("that").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 90:
Page 19, line 24, at end insert—
("(2A) Where an authorised person is satisfied at the time a person enters into an employee agreement that his employer has consented to his entering into the agreement, the validity of the agreement shall not be affected by any failure to comply with subsection (2); and a document purporting to be a certificate signed by the authorised person stating that he is so satisfied shall be evidence of that fact.

CWH 17
(2B) In subsection (2A) "authorised person" means a person authorised by or in accordance with directions of the Defence Council for the purpose of exercising the functions mentioned in that subsection.
The noble Earl said: This amendment adds to Clause 39 provisions applying to the validity of employee agreements in respect of employer's consent, which are similar to those for special agreements in Clause 29(2), provided a person authorised by the Defence Council for the purpose is satisfied that employer consent has been given. Such things as a technical defect in the giving of consent, or, for example, the presentation of a bogus letter purporting to give an employer's consent, will not invalidate the agreement. However, if that were the case the employer would be able to seek to have the agreement terminated.
The amendment is necessary to protect the armed forces from an unexpected loss of support at perhaps a vital time, resulting from a claim that employer consent was not properly given. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendments No. 91 to 93:
Page 19, line 25, leave out from ("shall") to ("if") in line 29.
Page 19, line 30, after ("agreement,") insert ("specify").
Page 19, line 31, leave out ("concerned") and insert ("specified in the agreement").
The noble Earl said: I have spoken to these amendments. I wish to move them en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 94 not moved.]
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 95:
Page 19, line 39, leave out subsection (5) and insert—

("(5) On entering into an employee agreement a person who is already a member of the reserve force concerned shall become a special member of that force.

(6) Where a person entering into an employee agreement is not already a member of the reserve force concerned—

(a) he shall become a special member of the force concerned on enlisting in or becoming an officer of that force; but

(b) the agreement shall lapse if he has not enlisted in or become an officer of that force on or before the date specified in the agreement.

(7) An employee agreement entered into by any person shall terminate—

(a) on his entering into another employee agreement;

(b) on his ceasing to be a member of the reserve force concerned; or

(c) on his resuming service as, or becoming, an ordinary member of that force in accordance with section (Discharge etc. of special members no longer liable to be called out or to train).").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 39, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 40 [Termination of agreements]:
On Question, Whether Clause 40 shall stand part of the Bill?
Earl Howe: In directing your Lordships' attention to Clause 40, perhaps I may point out that Amendment
CWH 18
No. 95 logically moves all the provisions contained in Clause 40 into Clause 39(5). I would therefore suggest to the Committee that Clause 40 be omitted.
Clause 40 negatived.
Clause 41 [Service as a special member]:
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 96:
Page 20, line 21, leave out subsection (3).
The noble Earl said: I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 97:
Page 20, line 36, leave out ("21 and 22") and insert ("and 21").
The noble Earl said: Again, I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 41, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 42 [Cessation of liability to be called out or to train]:
[Amendment No. 98 not moved.]
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendments Nos. 99 and 100:
Page 20, line 43, leave out ("a registered employer") and insert ("the employer whose consent was required to his entry into the employee agreement").
Page 21, line 20, at end insert—
("( ) The Secretary of State shall give a notice under subsection (1)(d) if it appears to him that his arrangements with the special member's employer have ceased to have effect.").
The noble Earl said: These amendments have already been spoken to with Amendment No. 81. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 101:
Page 21, line 25, leave out ("to the Secretary of State").
The noble Earl said: Amendment No. 101 is a drafting change to make the wording consistent. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 42, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 43 [Discharge etc. of special members]:
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 102:
Leave out Clause 43 and insert the following new Clause—

(".—(I) This section applies when a man of a reserve force who is a special member ("the man") ceases by virtue of section 42 to be subject to the liability mentioned in section 41(1).

(2) The man shall be discharged with all convenient speed in such manner as may be prescribed unless he enters into a new employee agreement or continues as an ordinary member in accordance with subsection (3) or (4).

(3) If the man—

(a) was an ordinary member of the reserve force concerned immediately before becoming a special member; and

(b) was then serving for a term which has not expired,

he shall resume his service as an ordinary member (and so cease to be a special member) in accordance with orders or regulations under section 4.

CWH 19

(4) If the man has been given permission by an authorised officer to continue as a member on ceasing to be a special member he shall, unless he resumes service under subsection (3), become an ordinary member (and so cease to be a special member) in accordance with orders or regulations under section 4.

(5) Nothing in this section affects the exercise of any power apart from this section to discharge a man of a reserve force or the operation of section 14(2) in relation to a man who is discharged.").

The noble Earl said: This amendment inserts a new clause which replaces Clauses 43 to 45. It does not change the substance of the Bill in any way. However, it does simplify greatly the provisions relating to the discharge of special members no longer able to be called out or to train, and those relating to individuals continuing in reserve service as ordinary members when their liabilities cease. In essence, the new clause, which the amendment seeks to insert, provides for the practical effects of Clauses 43 to 45 in a greatly simplified form. The simplification achieved is best appreciated by comparing the amended version of Part V with the original tabled version. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 43, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 44 negatived.
Clause 45 negatived.
Clause 46 [Call out of special members]:
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 103:
Page 22, line 42, leave out ("registered").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 104 and 105 not moved.]
Clause 46, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 47 agreed to.
Clause 48 [Release from service]:
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 106:
Page 24, line 25, leave out ("his services are no longer required by Her Majesty") and insert ("he is no longer required by Her Majesty to be in that service").
The noble Earl said: I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendments Nos. 107 and 108:
Page 25, line 7, leave out ("current") and insert ("relevant").
Page 25, line 10, leave out ("his employer") and insert ("the employer whose consent was required for his entering into the agreement").
The noble Earl said: I have already spoken to these amendments. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 48, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 49 [Exercise of functions by authorised officers]:
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendments Nos. 109 to 112:
Page 25, line 16, leave out ("authorised").
Page 25, line 17, leave out ("authorised").
Page 25, line 24, leave out ("authorised").
Page 25, line 25, leave out ("authorised").
The noble Earl said: I spoke to these amendments with Amendment No.70. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 49, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 50 [Parliamentary control of numbers and reports]:
[Amendment No. 113 not moved.]
Clause 50 agreed to.
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 114:
After Clause 50, insert the following new clause—
APPLICATION OF PART V TO CROWN SERVANTS, EMPLOYEES OF
SUB-CONTRACTORS AND SELF-EMPLOYED PERSONS
(".—(1) This Part shall have effect in relation to any Crown servant as if he were employed under a contract of service with such person as may be specified in directions made by the Secretary of State as his employer for the purposes of this Part.

(2) In this Part—

(a) references to arrangements between an employer and the Secretary of State include references to arrangements between another person and the Secretary of State in pursuance of which the employer supplies, or is to supply, goods or services to or for the benefit of the armed forces; and

(b) references to an employer who has made arrangements with the Secretary of State include references to an employer who supplies, or is to supply, goods or services to or for the benefit of the armed forces in pursuance of arrangements made by another person and the Secretary of State.

(3) This Part shall have effect in relation to any person who is self-employed as if—

(a) references to an employee were references to a self-employed person;

(b) references to arrangements between an employer and the Secretary of State were references to arrangements—

(i) between the self-employed person and the Secretary of State; or

(ii) between another person and the Secretary of State in pursuance of which the self-employed person concerned supplies, or is to supply, goods or services to or for the benefit of the armed forces;

(c) any requirement for the written consent of an employer were omitted;

(d) section 42(1)(b) were omitted.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 51 [Interpretation of Part V]:
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendments Nos. 115 and 116:
Page 26, leave out lines 7 to 9
Page 26, line 10, leave out subsection (2).
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 51, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 52 [Liability of members of reserve forces under call-out orders]:
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 117:
Page 26, line 31, leave out ("section 53").
The noble Earl said: I have already spoken to this Amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment to.
[Amendments Nos. 118 and 119 not moved.]
Clause 52, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 53 [Liability of existing members of reserve and regular forces]:
[Amendment No. 120 not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 53 shall stand part of the Bill?
Earl Howe: Your Lordships will recall that my remarks in relation to Clause 21 render this clause unnecessary.
Clause 53 negatived.
Clause 54 [Geographical extent of liability to service on call out]:
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 121:
Page 27, line 35, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
("(3) The terms of service of a person who makes an election under subsection (2) are modified to the extent required by the election.").
The noble Earl said: The existing subsection (3) of this clause is less than clear. It has therefore been redrafted. That does not have any substantive effect on the working of the Bill. Subsection (2) allows a reservist who has a liability only to serve in the United Kingdom or an area of the United Kingdom to elect to serve worldwide. The amended subsection (3) makes it clear that if the reservist chooses an election varying his terms of service in this way, they are modified to the extent that the election requires. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
4.45 p.m.
Clause 54, as amended, agreed.
Clause 55 [Call out for national danger, great emergency or attack on the UK]:
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 122:
Page 28, line 14, leave out ("If an order") and insert ("Where an order under subsection (5)").
The noble Earl said: In speaking to this amendment, I would also like to speak to Amendments Nos. 123, 130, 131, 136, 137, 152 and 153. These amendments are tabled in the interests of clarity. They do not have any substantive effect on the Bill. The structure of the Bill means that, for consistency, the same changes must be made to four pairs of clauses.
In each of those clauses there is in the Bill, as drafted, a reference in Clauses 55(6), 57(6) and 71(8) to an order revoking a call-out order, or an order revoking a recall order in the case of 71(8). In each of Clauses 55(6)(a), 57(6)(a), and 71(8)(a), there is a reference to a revocation order. These terms are not defined in the Bill. The amendments simply make it clear that, in each case, the order referred to in each subsection is an order made under Clauses 55(5), 57(5), 59(5) and 71(7) respectively. These clauses deal with call out and recall a nd it is important that their provisions are clear and unambiguous. I therefore commend them to the Committee.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 123:
Page 28, line 18, leave out ("revocation order") and insert ("order under subsection (5)").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 55, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Earl Bathurst: I wish to refer to the point about call-out at home for emergency service and to ask why it is that under this provision it is Her Majesty the Queen who will make the call-out, whereas elsewhere it is the Secretary of State who does this most tiresome and difficult thing for the reserve forces. Here I see that it is Her Majesty who is referred to. I do not, of course, expect an answer now.
Earl Howe: I believe I can be of help to the noble Earl. The provision to which he refers or for which he is looking is actually contained in Clause 59 of the Bill, which is the provision for the reserve forces to be used in disaster relief and events of that kind. The difference between the two methods of call-out simply reflects the difference in gravity between the two types of event, and Her Majesty's consent is required for the more serious type of event.
[Amendment No. 124 not moved.]
Clause 55, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 56 [Maximum duration of service on call out under section 55]:
[Amendment No. 125 not moved.]
Clause 56 agreed to.
Clause 57 [Call out for warlike operations]:
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 126:
Page 30, line 6, leave out from ("to") to ("order") in line 7 and insert ("paragraph (a) or to any").
The noble Earl said: In moving this amendment I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 127, 128 and 129. These are minor drafting points which clarify the expression of Clause 57 without changing its effect in the least. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendments Nos. 127 to 131:
Page 30, line 14, leave out from ("(2)(a)") to end of line.
Page 30, line 16, leave out ("that subsection") and insert ("subsection (3)").
Page 30, line 17, leave out ("so specified") and insert ("specified in the call-out order").
Page 30, line 21, leave out ("If an order") and insert ("Where an order under subsection (5)").
Page 30, line 25, leave out ("revocation order") and insert ("order under subsection (5)").
The noble Earl said: I beg to move the amendments en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 57, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 58 agreed to.
Clause 59 [Call out for certain operations]:
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 132:
Page 32, line 6, leave out from ("to") to ("order") in line 7 and insert ("paragraph (a) or to any").
The noble Earl said: In moving this amendment, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 133, 134 and 135. Again, these are minor drafting amendments. They improve the clarity of Clause 59 without changing its meaning. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendments Nos. 133 to 137:
Page 32, line 14, leave out from ("(2)(a)") to end of line.
Page 32, line 16, leave out ("that subsection") and insert ("subsection (3)").
Page 32, line 17, leave out ("so specified") and insert ("specified in the call-out order").
Page 32, line 21, leave out ("If an order") and insert ("Where an order under subsection (5)").
Page 32, line 25, leave out ("revocation order") and insert ("order under subsection (5)").
The noble Earl said: I have already spoken to these amendments. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 59, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 60 [Maximum duration of service on call out under section 59]:
[Amendment No. 138 not moved.]
Clause 60 agreed to.
Clause 61 [Call-out notices]:
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 139:
Page 34, line 29, leave out second ("under").
The noble Earl said: In moving this amendment, I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 140. These two amendments need to be made to correct minor errors in the original draft of the Bill. The first amendment merely deletes the word "under" which has been repeated unnecessarily in Clause 61. The second amendment deletes a phrase which was included in error in the same clause. Without the amendment the sense of the subsection is lost. I offer my apologies to the Committee for the error. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 140:
Page 34, line 30, leave out from ("section") to end of line 31.
The noble Earl said: I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 61, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 62 agreed to.
Clause 63 [Period of service and release]:
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 141:
Page 35, line 31, leave out ("his services are no longer required by Her Majesty") and insert ("he is no longer required by Her Majesty to be in that service").
The noble Earl said: I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 63, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 64 agreed to.
Clause 65 agreed to.
Clause 66 [Exercise of functions by authorised officers]:
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendments Nos. 143 to 146:
Page 36, line 42, leave out ("authorised").
Page 36, line 43, leave out ("authorised").
Page 37, line 5, leave out ("authorised").
Page 37, line 6, leave out ("authorised").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 66, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 67 agreed to.
Clause 68 [Liability to recall]:
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 147:
Page 37, line 31, after ("been") insert ("released or").
The noble Earl said: In moving this amendment, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 149, 154, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 181, 188, 189 and 247. Part VII deals with those ex-regular service personnel who are not members of a reserve force but who nevertheless have a liability to recall.
A man who is liable to recall rejoins the appropriate regular service for the period of permanent service, leaves it at the end of that period and reverts to being a civilian. The term for a man leaving a regular force, whether following a regular service or recall, is "discharge".
An officer who is not in a reserve force does not cease to be an officer at the end of a period of permanent service following recall. He remains an officer for as long as his commission persists.
Accordingly, it is not appropriate to use the term "discharge" for officers. Instead, they are "released from permanent service".
The distinction is a technical one. In accordance with the general policy of the Bill, officers and men are, as far as possible, dealt with in a similar manner. The other changes are consequential. It is necessary to have a slightly different definition of "man" in Part VII. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 148 not moved.]
Clause 68, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 69 [Persons who may be recalled under Part VII]:
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 149:
Page 38, line 17, leave out ("man mentioned in subsection (1)") and insert ("person falling within subsection (1)(b)").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 69, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 70 agreed to.
Clause 71 [Recall for national danger, great emergency or attack on the UK]:
[Amendment No. 150 not moved.]
Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 151:
Page 39, line 41, at end insert ("is made").
The noble Earl said: With the leave of the Committee shall take this amendment on its own. It is a minor drafting point inserting two words omitted by mistake. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendments Nos. 152 to 154:
Page 39, line 44, leave out ("When an order") and insert ("Where an order under subsection (7)").
Page 40, line I, leave out ("revocation order") and insert ("order under subsection (7)").
Page 40, line 4, at beginning insert ("released or").
The noble Earl said: I have already spoken to these amendments. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 155 not moved.]
Clause 71, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 72 [Maximum duration of service on recall]:
5 p.m.
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendments Nos. 156 to 162:
Page 40, line 16, leave out from ("are") to end of line 17 and insert ("entitled to be released from service (in the case of officers) or discharged (in the case of men)").
Page 40, line 18, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
("(2) A person is (if not released or discharged sooner) entitled to be released from service or discharged when his current service under the recall order, or his current service and any relevant service in aggregate, exceeds 3 years.").
Page 40, line 23, after ("be") insert ("released or").
Page 40, line 26, after ("be") insert ("released or").
Page 40, line 35, after ("be") insert ("released or").
Page 40, line 38, after second ("be") insert ("released or").
Page 40, line 41, leave out from ("be") to ("at") and insert ("released from service or discharged").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 72, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 73 and 74 agreed to.
Clause 75 [Period of service and release]:
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendments Nos. 163 and 164:
Page 42, line 34, leave out from ("until") to end of line and insert ("released from service or discharged").
Page 42, line 35, leave out from ("be") to ("with") in line 36 and insert ("released or discharged").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 165:
Page 42, line 37, leave out from beginning to ("or") and insert ("he is no longer required by Her Majesty to be in that service").
The noble Earl said: I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 166:
Page 42, line 37, after ("not") insert ("released or").
The noble Earl said: I was under the impression that I had spoken to this amendment but I am afraid I cannot find it on the list. I am advised that I spoke to it with Amendment No. 147. I beg to move.
Lord Mottistone: I agree with that.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: Does the noble Earl wish to move the amendment?
Earl Howe: I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 1167:
Page 42, line 38, after ("be") insert ("released or").
The noble Earl said: Amendment No. 167 was spoken to with Amendment No. 166. It is the same amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 168:
Page 42, leave out line 42 and insert—
("(3) The Defence Council may by regulations").
The noble Earl said: In moving this amendment I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 174, 175, 182, 183 and 248. The purpose of these amendments is to ensure that there is appropriate legal authority for the making of regulations for those liable to recall under Part VII. As they are not members of any reserve force, they do not come within the scope of Clause 4. The amendment to Clause 128 is intended to reflect that fact.
Since Clause 4 cannot apply to those liable to recall, it is necessary to provide an appropriate authority for the making of regulations—the Defence Council. As it will be responsible for most of the regulations made for those who are covered by Clause 4, it seems sensible to make it responsible for those not covered by it as well.
The remaining amendments refer to the Defence Council as the appropriate authority for making the regulations concerned, and introduce the words "of any persons" to make it clear that such regulations can only reduce or relax the liability of those persons liable to recall. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 169:
Page 43, line 5, after ("be") insert ("released or").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 170:
Page 43, line I I, after first ("be") insert ("released or").
The noble Earl said: I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 147. It is exactly the same in substance as the other amendments that we have already passed. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 171:
Page 43, line 15, leave out ("current") and insert ("relevant").
The noble Earl said: I spoke to this with Amendment No. 69. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 172:
Page 43, line 18, leave out ("discharged from that service") insert ("released from service or discharged").
The noble Earl said: I have already spoken to this amendment and, although the amendments do not feature on the groupings list, I am advised that they were included in the group headed by Amendment No. 147.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: I am sorry to have to correct the noble Earl but they were not included in that grouping.
Lord Williams of Elvel: I am forsaking my Trappist vows just for this purpose. In the grouping list issued by the Government Whip's Office, Amendment No. 172 heads a group which includes Amendments Nos. 192 and 193, and I hope very much that the Committee will be guided by that.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: The Chairman is guided by that because he does not recollect that Amendments Nos. 172, 192 or 193 were spoken to when previous amendments were moved, so I suggest that the noble Earl might be good enough to move them. I do not believe he will have too serious trouble.
Earl Howe: I have already moved the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 173:
Page 43, line 20, leave out ("a service offence") and insert ("an offence under service law").
The noble Earl said: This is a minor drafting amendment which replaces the term "a service offence" with ones that are apparently more familiar to the services. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 75, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 76 [Power to exempt persons from or relax recall liability]:
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendments Nos. 174 and 175:
Page 43, line 25, leave out from beginning to ("relaxing") in line 28 and insert ("The Defence Council may by regulations make provision—

(a) securing that, in such cases as may be prescribed, persons otherwise liable to be recalled are exempt from that liability; and

(b)")

Page 43, line 29, after ("liability") insert ("of any persons").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 76, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 77 [Exercise of functions by authorised officers]:
[Amendment No. 176 not moved.]
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendments Nos. 177 to 180:
Page 43, line 32, leave out ("authorised").
Page 43, line 33, leave out ("authorised").
CWH 28
Page 43, line 40, leave out ("authorised").
Page 43, line 41, leave out ("authorised").
The noble Earl said: I spoke to these amendments with Amendment No. 70. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 77, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 78 agreed to.
Clause 79 [Interpretation of Part VII]:
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendments Nos. 181 to 183:
Page 44, line 31, at end insert—
(""man" means a person of either sex who is of or below the rank or rate of warrant officer;").
Page 44, line 31, at end insert—
(""prescribed" means prescribed in regulations made by the Defence Council;").
Page 44, line 36, at end insert—
("(2) Regulations made by the Defence Council under this Part may include incidental or supplementary provision and shall be laid before Parliament after being made.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 79, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 80 [Individual exemptions etc. from call out]:
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 184:
Page 45, line 20, leave out ("any other provision") and insert ("any provision of Part VI;
(f) if the original notice was served under Part VI and the person concerned has entered into a special agreement, an exemption from liability to be called out under Part IV.").
The noble Earl said: In moving this amendment, I should like to speak also to Amendments. Nos. 185 and 186. All these amendments ensure that the provision for regulations enabling individuals to seek deferral of or exemption from call-out before acceptance into service is provided for under the required parts of the Bill. These are technical amendments which ensure that the regulations may cover all the possible combinations of call-out and exemptions. Those added here are exemptions under Part IV if exempted or released from call-out under Part VI. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendments Nos. 185 and 186:
Page 45, line 32, leave out from ("the") to end of line 33 and insert ("same provision of Part VI as the order under which he is currently serving,").
Page 45, line 34, leave out from ("under") to end of line 35 and insert ("any provision of Part VI;
(e) if a determination is given that he is entitled to be released from service under Part VI and provision such as is mentioned in section 82(2)(db) applies in his case, an exemption from liability to be called out under Part IV.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 187:
Page 45, line 36, leave out subsection (5).
The noble Earl said: I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 54. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 80, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 81 [Individual exemptions etc. from recall]:
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendments Nos. 188 and 189:
Page 45, line 44, after ("to") insert ("release or").
Page 46, line 15, leave out from ("be") to end of line 16 and insert ("released from service or discharged").
The noble Earl said: I spoke to these amendments with Amendment No. 147. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 81, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 82 [Effect of exemptions etc.]:
5.15 p.m.
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 190:
Page 46, line 41, leave out ("in relation to any") and insert ("for").
The noble Earl said: In moving this amendment I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 191.
Clause 82 defines the main scope of the exemption regulations. I believe that Amendments Nos. 190 and 191 to the clause are straightforward and should not present any difficulties.
Amendment No. 190 is a minor drafting amendment. Amendment No. 191 is more complicated, but again has been made to improve the clause. Its main effect is to permit an individual who is released or discharged after making an application under Clauses 80 or 81 to be Treated for the purposes of Clause 31 as if he had never been accepted into the service. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 191:
Page 46, leave out lines 43 to 47 and insert ("to lapse as mentioned in paragraph (c);

(da) for persons released from service under Part IV in pursuance of a determination of entitlement to release to be treated for the purposes of section 31(3) as if they had not been in that service and released;

(db) for persons released from service under Part VI in pursuance of a determination of entitlement to release to be treated for the purposes of section 3l(I)(d) as if they had not been in that service;").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 82, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 83 [Regulations under sections 80 and 81: supplementary]:
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 192:
Page 47, line 38, leave out ("58(10)") and insert ("58(11)").
The noble Earl said: The amendment is a minor one and ensures that Clause 83 (3)(b)(i) has the correct cross-reference in order that its provisions can operate correctly. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 193:
Page 47, line 44, after ("be") insert ("released or").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 83, as amended, agreed to.
[Amendment No. 194 not moved.]
Clause 84 agreed to.
Clause 85 [Payments to individuals in respect of call out or recall]:
[Amendment No. 195 not moved.]
Clause 85 agreed to.
Clause 86 agreed to.
Clause 87 [Regulations under sections 85 and 86: supplementary]:
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 196:
Page 50, line 11, leave out subsection (5) and insert—
("( ) The regulations may also make provision for claims by or in respect of—

(a) persons recalled under the Reserve Forces Act 1980, or

(b) officers recalled otherwise than under this Act,

corresponding to the provision which may be made for claims by or in respect of persons recalled under Part VII.").
The noble Earl said: This amendment restates the provision for those liable to be recalled under existing legislation but without mention of call-out. This is because recall will not be included in the new transitional schedule that I mentioned earlier. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 87, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 88 [Power to suspend payments due to national danger or great emergency]:
[Amendment No. 197 not moved.]
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 198:
Page 50, leave out lines 36 and 37 and insert ("which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament").
The noble Earl said: This amendment addresses concerns expressed to me privately by noble Lords that the process of suspending payments under Clause 88(4) is too ponderous.
The proposed amendment ensures that any order to suspend payments can take immediate effect. Reflecting the seriousness of such a decision, it continues to provide for Parliament to approve such a step under the negative resolution procedure. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 88, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 89 to 93 agreed to.
Clause 94 [Membership of tribunals etc.]:
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 199:
Page 52, line 34, leave out ("assessor") and insert ("officer").
The noble Earl said: This is a very minor drafting point. Clause 94(2) refers to "officer". The word "assessor" was introduced in error. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 94, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 95 [General power to make rules]:
[Amendments Nos. 200 and 201 not moved.]
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 202:
Page 53, line 7, at beginning insert ("enabling or").
The noble Earl said: This amendment avoids any suggestion that hearings of the Appeal Tribunal will usually be held in private. That option must have an appeal available. Evidence might have a security classification, be commercially sensitive or indeed be intensely private in nature. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 95, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 96 agreed to.
Clause 97 [Offences against orders and regulations under section 4]:
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 203:
Page 53, line 40, leave out ("such orders or regulations") and insert ("orders or regulations under section 4").
The noble Earl said: In moving this amendment, I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 204, 205 and 206. These amendments do not in any way extend the scope of the offences provided in Clause 97. They simply close a possible loophole which might have arisen if the various elements of the offence had been provided for in separate orders or regulations. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendments Nos. 204 to 206:
Page 53, line 44, leave out ("such orders or regulations") and insert ("orders or regulations under section 4").
Page 54, line 2, leave out ("such orders or regulations") and insert ("orders or regulations under section 4").
Page 54, line 4, leave out ("such orders or regulations") and insert ("orders or regulations under section 4").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 207:
Page 54, line 6, leave out ("and liable to be tried") and insert ("triable"). The noble Earl said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 208. These are two minor amendments which save a few words in the Bill. They do not change the substance. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 208:
Page 54, line 10, leave out from ("punishment") to end of line 11 and insert ("provided for by service law;").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 209:
Page 54, leave out lines 18 and 19.
The noble Earl said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 238. These amendments simply move a proposition from Clause 97 to Clause 107. In Clause 107 it applies to offences under Clause 97 and also under other clauses. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 97, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 98 [Failure to attend for service, duty or training]:
[Amendment No. 210 not moved.]
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 211:
Page 54, line 36, leave out from ("himself") to ("or") in line 37 and insert ("to a person specified in the call-out notice or to any other authorised officer").
The noble Earl said: This amendment changes the wording of the offence in Clause 98 to match the wording used when call-out notices are defined; for example, in Clause 61(3). I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 212:
Page 54, line 42, at end insert—

("(I A) Subsection (1) applies to a person liable to recall as it applies to a member of a reserve force—

(a) with the substitution for references to a call-out notice of references to a recall notice; and

(b) as if paragraph (a) of that subsection referred to the time and place specified in the recall notice under section 73(3)(c).

(1B) An offence under this section is triable by court-martial or summarily by a civil court.").

The noble Earl said: Persons liable for recall under the Reserve Forces Act 1980 commit an offence if they fail to comply with a recall notice which is served on them; but the offence of failure to attend for service, etc. under Clause 98 of this Bill only applies to members of reserve forces. Persons liable to recall are not members of a reserve force. This amendment cures the omission by treating those served with a recall notice as if they were members of a reserve force served with a call-out notice. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 213:
Page 54, line 43, leave out subsections (2) to (5).
The noble Earl said: In speaking to Amendment No. 213 I shall speak also to Amendment No. 214. I shall not yet speak to Amendment No. 215. These two amendments make no substantive change to the Bill. They have two purposes: the first is to separate the offences in the new Clause 98(a) from those in the existing Clause 98 as amended. The second is to improve clarity. No substantive change is involved. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 98, as amended, agreed to.
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 214:
After Clause 98, insert the following new clause—
FAILURE TO ATTEND FOR DUTY OR TRAINING
.—(1) A member of a reserve force who has entered into a full time service commitment or an additional duties commitment and, without leave lawfully granted or reasonable excuse, fails to appear at the time and place at which he is required to attend—

(a) in the case of a full-time service commitment, to begin the period of full-time service contemplated by the commitment;

(b) in the case of an additional duties commitment, to begin a period of service under the commitment,

is guilty, according to the circumstances, of desertion or absence without leave.

(2) A member of a reserve force who—

CWH 33

(a) is required to undergo a period of training in accordance with section 21, a special agreement or an employee agreement (or any other requirement applicable to special members), and

(b) fails, without leave lawfully granted or reasonable excuse, to appear at any time and place at which he is required to attend,

is guilty of absence without leave.

(3) An offence under this section is triable by court-martial or summarily by a civil court.").

The noble Earl said: I have spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 99 [Punishment etc. of offences of desertion or absence without leave]:
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 215:
Page 55, line 24, leave out subsections (1) and (2) and insert—
("( ) An offence under section 37 or 38 of the Army Act 1955 or the Air Force Act 1955 or section 16 or 17 of the Naval Discipline Act 1957 (offences under service law of desertion or absence without leave) committed by a member of a reserve force is triable summarily by a civil court as well as by court-martial.
( ) A member of a reserve force convicted by court-martial of an offence under section 98(1) or (Failure to attend for duty or training)(I) is punishable as for an offence under service law of absence without leave (as the case may be).
( ) A member of a reserve force convicted by a civil court of—

(a) an offence under section 98(1) or (Failure to attend for duty or training)(1), or

(b) an offence under service law of desertion or absence without leave,

is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale (or both).
( ) A person convicted of an offence under section (Failure to attend for duty or training)(2) is liable—

(a) if convicted by court-martial, to the same punishment as for an offence under service law of desertion or absence without leave;

(b) if convicted by a civil court, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale (or both).

( ) A person convicted by a civil court of an offence mentioned in this section, if sentenced to a term of imprisonment or if such a term is imposed in default of payment of any fine, is liable to be taken into military, air-force or naval custody (as the case may require).").
The noble Earl said: I am grateful to the Committee for allowing me to depart from the groupings as published. This amendment is introduced to improve the clarity of the Bill by referring explicitly to offences of desertion or absence without leave, rather than only referring back to the appropriate sections of the Service Discipline Acts, and to make some minor consequential changes arising out of the revision of Clause 98, and the insertion of a new Clause 98(a).
The purpose of the Clause, which is to specify the maximum penalties for offences of desertion or absence without leave, remains unchanged. It also removes the erroneous references to "man" in subsections (1)(a), (b) and (c), and subsection (2) of Clause 99 as drafted. It is the intention that all offences should apply equally to officers and men, and the amended draft reflects this policy by making the offences apply to members of a reserve force. There is no other substantive change.
I should like to apologise to the Committee for the error in the original text. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 216:
Page 55, line 44, leave out ("is found guilty") and insert ("or a person liable to recall is convicted").
The noble Earl said: In speaking to this amendment I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 217 to 220 inclusive and 222 to 225 inclusive. Some of these amendments are consequential to an earlier amendment which made the offences under Clause 98 apply to those liable to recall, as they already did to members of the reserve forces. The other change is in Clause 102 and modifies the clause so that procuring or inciting a member of a reserve force to become an absentee without leave is an offence, as it already is in connection with a deserter. The other amendments make a number of minor drafting changes. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 217:
Page 55, line 47, after ("of') insert ("release from permanent service or").
The noble Earl said: I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 99, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 100 agreed to.
Clause 101 [Treatment of deserters etc.]:
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendments Nos. 218 to 220:
Page 56, line 7, at end insert—
("(1A) Schedule 2 shall apply to a person liable to recall who is a suspected deserter or absentee without leave by virtue of this Part and is not otherwise subject to service law as it applies to a member of a reserve force.").
Page 56, line 8, after ("force") insert ("or a person liable to recall").
Page 56, line 11, leave out ("as provided by section 98") and insert ("in accordance with this Part").
The noble Earl said: I have already spoken to these amendments. I beg to move en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 101, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 102 [Inducing a person to desert or absent himself]:
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 221:
Page 56, line 13, leave out from ("means") to end of line 16 and insert—
("(a) procures or persuades, or attempts to procure or persuade. a member of a reserve force to commit an offence of desertion or absence without leave;").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendments Nos. 222 to 225:
Page 56, line 19, after ("deserter") insert ("or an absentee without leave").
Page 56, line 20, after ("deserter") insert ("or absentee").
Page 56, line 22, leave out from ("offence") to end of line 24 and insert—

CWH 35
("(1A) A person who,

(a) procures or persuades, or attempts to procure or persuade, a person liable to recall to commit an offence of desertion or absence without leave; or

(b) knowing that such a person is about to commit such an offence, aids or assists him in so doing; or

(c) knowing a person liable to recall to be a deserter or absentee without leave, procures or persuades or assists him to remain a deserter or absentee, or assists in his rescue from custody,

is guilty of an offence.
(1B) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (1) or (IA) is liable on summary conviction—

(a) in the case of an offence involving an offence of desertion or a deserter, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale (or both); and

(b) in the case of an offence of absence without leave or an absentee without leave, to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.").

Page 56, line 25, leave out subsection (2).
The noble Earl said: I have already spoken to these amendments. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 102, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 103 [Record of illegal absence]:
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 226:
Page 56, line 33, leave out ("the man's") and insert ("his").
The noble Earl said: With this amendment I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 227 and 231. These are minor drafting amendments. By replacing the words "man" or "man's" with pronouns they allow the effect of "member" in the first line of Clause 103(1) to be carried through the clause. The result is that the procedures apply to officers as well as to men. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 227:
Page 56, line 34, leave out ("the man") and insert ("he").
The noble Earl said: I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 228:
Page 56, line 43, leave out from ("Act") to end of line 44 and insert ("fails, without leave lawfully granted, to do anything mentioned in section 98(1)(a), (b) or (c);
(aa) having entered into a full-time service commitment fails, without leave lawfully granted, to appear at any time or place at which he is required to attend to begin the period of full-time service contemplated by the commitment;
(ab) having entered into an additional duties commitment fails, without leave lawfully granted, to appear at any time or place at which he is required to begin a period of duty under the commitment;").
The noble Earl said: Clause 103 provides for the investigation and recording of unlawful absences. It is only right that those who have committed themselves to perform full-time service or additional duties should be subject to these provisions in the same way as persons who are called out are. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 229:
Page 57, line 1, leave out ("in accordance with section 21").
The noble Earl said: In moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 230. The omission of the reference to Clause 21 covered by Amendment No. 229 means that Clause 103 applies to training that is required as opposed to voluntary under any clause. The amendment rectifies that. The clarification of the word "fails" in Amendment No. 230 is simply a point of drafting. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendments Nos. 230 and 231:
Page 57, line 2, leave out ("fails") and insert ("as mentioned in section (Failure to attend for duty or training)(2) fails, without leave lawfully granted,").
Page 57, line 4, leave out ("the man's") and insert ("his").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 103, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 104 [Trial of offences]:
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 232:
Page 57, line 8, leave out from ("which") to end and insert ("is by virtue of this Part triable").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 233:
Page 57, line 11, leave out ("his commanding officer") and insert ("an officer having power to deal with the case)").
The noble Earl said: This is another small, technical amendment. It takes account of the fact that various classes of case may under service law be disposed of summarily by officers who are not the commanding officer. For minor offences, an officer subordinate to the commanding officer may conduct the proceedings. In some other cases, a superior officer is involved. I beg to move.
Lord Mottistone: A subordinate officer when I was in the navy did not just mean an officer who was subordinate. My noble friend may care to examine the matter to see whether the right word is being used.
Earl Howe: I may have used the wrong expression in connection with the navy. If so, I apologise to my noble friend. However, I believe that the sense of the amendment is clear. It refers to "an officer having power to deal with the case". I was merely trying to clarify what that meant and, if I did so in incorrect naval terms I apologise to the Committee.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 104, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 105 [Jurisdiction of courts]:
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 234:
Page 57, leave out lines 25 to 34 and insert ("imposed under this Part by a court-martial shall be paid to such authority as may be prescribed.").
The noble Earl said: This amendment replaces the long and rather outdated wording of Clause 105(3) with something shorter having the same practical effect. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 105, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 106 [Trial of offences by civil court]:
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 235:
Page 57, line 42, leave out from ("under") to ("committed") in line 43 and insert ("service law (other than an offence of desertion or absence without leave)").
The noble Earl said: With leave of the Committee I shall speak to this amendment on its own. It is a small technical change to avoid any overlap between Clause 106 and Clause 99 as amended. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 106, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 107 [Offences triable by court-martial or civil court]:
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 236:
Page 58, line 3, after ("court-martial") insert ("(or by an officer having power to deal summarily with the case)").
The noble Earl said: I shall also speak to Amendment No. 237. Amendment No. 236 is a minor drafting amendment, as is the other. It draws the effect of subsection (2) into subsection (I) and clarifies the implications at the same time. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendments Nos. 237 and 238:
Page 58, line 4, leave out subsection (2),
Page 58, line 6, at end insert—
("( ) It is immaterial, for the purposes of any provision of this Part making an offence triable by court-martial, whether the person concerned is otherwise subject to service law.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 107, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 108 [Time for institution of proceedings]:
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 239:
Page 58, line 11, leave out ("punishable under this Part") and insert ("under this Act or under service law").
The noble Earl said: This is a minor technical change which allows for two points. First, there are offences not just in Part X but also, for example, in Part VIII, to which Clause 108 should apply. Secondly, it makes explicit the previous implication that Clause 108 applies to offences under service law. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 108, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 109 [Evidence]:
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 240:
Page 58, line 26, leave out ("Part") and insert ("Act").
The noble Earl said: This amendment extends the proposition about evidence in Clause 109(3) to documents covered by all of the Bill instead of just Part X of the Bill. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 109, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 110 to 112 agreed to.
Clause 113 [General duties of associations]:
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 241:
Page 59, line 31, leave out ("military") arid insert ("land").
The noble Earl said: This is a minor drafting amendment. The associations provide no real support to the Royal Navy and Royal Marines, hence the need to refer to land and air forces. Some support is provided to the reserve naval and marine forces and paragraph (b) provides for this. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 113, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 114 [Powers and duties assignable to associations]:
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 242:
Page 60, line 22, after ("or") insert ("on duty or when").
The noble Earl said: Clause 114(2) describes the powers and duties which may be transferred to the TAVRAs and goes on to list these. This amendment revises the ambit of paragraph (a) which provides for the organisation of units of the Territorial Army and Royal Auxiliary Air Force. The amendment revises paragraph (a) so that it provides that the associations shall not be responsible for the organisation of units when on duty as well as when training or in permanent service, which is already provided under paragraph (a). I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 114, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 115 to 117 agreed to.
Clause 118 [Regulations as to associations]:
[Amendments No. 243 and 244 not moved.]
Clause 118 agreed to.
Clause 119 agreed to.
Clauses 120, 121 and 122 agreed to.
Clause 123 [Safeguard of employment for members of reserve forces]:
[Amendment No. 245 not moved.]
Clause 123 agreed to.
Clauses 124 and 125 agreed to.
Clause 126 [Absence for voting]:
[Amendment No. 246 not moved.]
Clause 126 agreed to.
Clause 127 agreed to.
Clause 128 [Interpretation]:
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendments Nos. 247 and 248:
Page 65, line 16, after (""man"") insert ("(except in Part VII)").
Page 65, line 18, after ("means") insert ("(except in Part VII)").
The noble Earl said: I have already spoken to Amendments Nos. 247 and 248. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 249:
Page 65, line 22, at end insert ("(but does not include the Royal Marines)").
The noble Earl said: This minor amendment corrects the definition of "regular army". The Army Act deals with the regular forces, which are the regular army and the Royal Marines. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 250:
Page 65, line 30, at end insert—
(""special member" means a member of a reserve force who is, by virtue of Part V, a special member of that force;").
The noble Earl said: Amendment No. 250 adds a definition of a term used in the Bill. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 251:
Page 65, line 30, at end insert—
(""term of compulsory service" has the meaning given by section 14(5);").
The noble Earl said: I spoke to this with Amendment No. 32. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 128, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 129 agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 130 shall stand part of the Bill?
Earl Howe: The Committee will recall the remarks which accompanied my coverage of Clause 21 and will realise that this Clause is now unnecessary.
Clause 130 negatived.
Clauses 131 to 133 agreed to.
Schedule 1 [Enlistment]:
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 252:
Page 68, leave out lines 16 to 25 and insert ("by a person with—

(a) parental responsibility (within the meaning of the Children Act 1989 or the Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995) for the person offering to enlist; or

(b) parental responsibilities (within the meaning of section 1(3) of the Children (Scotland) Act 1995) in relation to that person.").

The noble Earl said: This amendment replaces a long description of the person who should give consent to the enlistment of a person under the specified minimum age, with something much shorter. The new words rest on the Children Act 1989, and the equivalent provisions in Scotland and Northern Ireland. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 253:
Page 69, line 10, leave out from ("3") to the end of line 11.
The noble Earl said: In moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 258. These two amendments remove references to the receipt of pay by certain reservists, affecting their enlistment status. They were carried forward from the 1980 Act, but on reflection that seems anomalous. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 254 not moved.]
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 255:
Page 69, line 36, leave out from beginning to second ("the") and insert ("If no claim under sub-paragraph (3) or (4) is made within 3 months from the date on which he signed the declaration,").
The noble Earl said: With the leave of the Committee I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 256 and 257. These amendments improve the slightly archaic wording of Schedule 1(4)(6), which was derived from the Reserve Forces Act 1980. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendments Nos. 256, 257 and 258:
Page 69, line 37, leave out from ("deemed") to ("to").
Page 69, line 40, leave out ("in pursuance of") and insert ("under").
Page 69, leave out lines 42 to 47.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 259:
Page 70, line 3, after ("knowingly") insert ("or recklessly").
The noble Earl said: This small amendment makes the Schedule 5 offence consistent with others in the Bill and with usual practice. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 260:
Page 70, line 24, at end insert—
("(2) In this paragraph "civil court" has the same meaning as in Part X.").
The noble Earl said: This amendment shows the need to include a separate definition of civil court in Schedule 1. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Deserters and absentees without leave]:
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 261:
Page 70, line 44, leave out ("land or air").
The noble Earl said: This amendment completes the process of making Schedule 2 apply equally to all the reserve forces. The words "land and air" escaped the draftsman's blue pencil when the schedule was prepared. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: There is an error in the Marshalled List. I should call Amendment No. 262 before Amendment No. 261A.
[Amendment No. 262 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 261A not moved.]
Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 3 [Evidence]:
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 263:
Page 73, line 16. leave out ("criminal"). The noble Earl said: This minor amendment allows for the fact that not all the proceedings covered by Schedule 3 could properly be described as criminal. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 4 [Provisions of schemes for the constitution of associations]:
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 264:
Page 76, line 47, leave out ("or Deputy Governor").
The noble Lord said: As I have just completed a happy appointment as Governor of the Isle of Wight I feel that I might take some of your Lordships' time to explain the reasons for the amendment. I was most surprised to see provision made for Deputy Governors to be ex officio members of relevant territorial associations. Your Lordships may be interested to know that Lords, Captains and Governors of the Isle of Wight with similar responsibilities to those of Lord Lieutenants with regard to ensuring loyalty to the Crown and where necessary raising the militia were first appointed by Norman kings in 1066, some 500 years before Lord Lieutenants were introduced by the Tudors. There is some record in the Isle of Wight of Deputy Governors being appointed in the 17th century, but none in this century by either Princess Beatrice, who was Governor for 50 years from the 1890s to her death in the 1940s. or her immediate successor in the 1950s, the Duke of Wellington, or his successor in the sixties and seventies, Lord Mountbatten.
From studying earlier legislation, it seems to me that the provision for Deputy Governors was formally introduced into law at the request of Viscount Eversley, an ex-Speaker of another place, whose titles died with him. He was the Governor of the Isle of Wight in the 1880s at the time of the passing of the Militia Act 1882 which introduced Deputy Governors in a large way.
So far as we know in the Isle of Wight, none of the Viscount's successors has found it necessary to implement the provisions of the Act with regard to deputies.
It seems to me that there is therefore no need for mention in the Bill. It is perhaps of interest' that Governors are appointed by the Queen. They have sometimes been royal persons, sometimes distinguished persons from mainland England and sometimes even islanders like myself. The present Queen takes great personal interest in these appointments and the governorship of the Isle of Wight reverts to the Crown between appointments. That is the case at present, as I retired about a month ago. I beg to move.
Earl Howe: My noble friend Lord Mottistone is an acknowledged and respected champion of the Isle of Wight and having listened to his very cogent argument I am perfectly content on behalf of the Government to accept his amendment. I might add that the reference to the Deputy Governor in this context first appeared in Section 39(4) of the Territorial and Reserve Forces Act 1907, so my noble friend's amendment would achieve a long overdue correction of the statute book on this small, but of course highly significant, point.
Lord Mottistone: I have to intervene to say that the first time that the Deputy Governors were mentioned was in Section 49 of the Militia Act 1882!
CWH 42
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 265:
Page 77, line 8, after ("Marines") insert ("or the Royal Marines Reserve").
The noble Earl said: I will speak also, with the leave of the Committee, to Amendment No. 266. These minor amendments make it explicit rather than implicit that current or former membership of the Royal Naval Reserve and Royal Marines Reserve is a qualification for the appropriate category of membership of the Territorial, Auxiliary and Volunteer Reserve Associations. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 266:
Page 77, line 14, after ("Navy") insert ("or the Royal Naval Reserve").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 4, as amended, agreed to.
Schedules 5 to 8 agreed to.
Schedule 9 [Minor and consequential amendments]:
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 267:
Page 90, leave out lines 1 to 8.
The noble Earl said: This amendment removes material which is now covered more fully in Schedule 7. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 9, as amended, agreed to.
The remaining schedule agreed to.
Lord Williams of Elvel: We are corning to the end of this rather extraordinary Committee. I am grateful, if I may say so, to the Chairman for conducting proceedings of a somewhat farcical nature in the way that he has done. I hope now that the Government have a Bill after more than two hours of the Committee's time. I hope the Government now have a Bill that they can seriously put before the Committee. As the Bill has only been in draft for about six months, and in consultation for perhaps longer than that, that of course is an achievement. But I hope very much that on Thursday we can get on to the main business of the Committee which is discussing Opposition and other noble Lords' amendments and arguments to the Government's Bill.
Earl Howe: I am conscious of the number of government amendments and, of course, that is to be regretted, but I also feel that the noble Lord is being a little less than generous in regard to the amendments brought forward specifically at his behest which we have made great efforts to include. While I take his point and I regret the time that this has taken, I do believe that the majority of the amendments which I have moved this afternoon have been of a minor, technical or drafting nature which have been quickly dealt with.
Bill to be reported with amendments.
The Committee adjourned at twenty minutes before six o'clock.

  World Conference on Women, Beijing: Opposition to Abortion
  World Conference on Women, Beijing: Opposition to Abortion
  Chinese Orphanages: Allegations of Abuses
  Chinese Orphanages: Allegations of Abuses
  Western Mediterranean Countries' Transport Ministers' Meetings: Outcome
  Western Mediterranean Countries' Transport Ministers' Meetings: Outcome
  Royal Commission on the Historical Monuments of England: Review
  Royal Commission on the Historical Monuments of England: Review
  Asylum Seekers: Local Authority Costs
  Asylum Seekers: Local Authority Costs
  Schools in Scotland: Cold Weather Precautions
  Schools in Scotland: Cold Weather Precautions
  Unemployment among 50–65 Year-Olds
  Unemployment among 50–65 Year-Olds
  Social Security Policy: Implications for VAT Revenue
  Social Security Policy: Implications for VAT Revenue
  Housing Benefit and Young People
  Housing Benefit and Young People
  Lone Parent Benefit Changes: Consultations with Department of Health
  Lone Parent Benefit Changes: Consultations with Department of Health
  Parents with Care: Return of Forms to CSA
  Parents with Care: Return of Forms to CSA
  Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994: Offences under Section 145
  Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994: Offences under Section 145
  Special Constables Injured on Duty: Compensation
  Special Constables Injured on Duty: Compensation
  Asylum Seekers: Deportations
  Asylum Seekers: Deportations
  Organophosphorus Product Licensing: International Consultation
  Organophosphorus Product Licensing: International Consultation
  European Legislation Affecting UK Interests
  European Legislation Affecting UK Interests
  Warble Fly
  Warble Fly
  Organophosphorus Insecticides: Use on Cows
  Organophosphorus Insecticides: Use on Cows
  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy: Incidence by Area
  Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy: Incidence by Area